Parisi v. Mazzaferro
5 Cal. App. 5th 1219
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff William Parisi (conservator for a dependent adult) obtained a civil harassment restraining order under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 527.6 against defendant Ronald Mazzaferro based on repeated letters and harassment directed at Parisi and his family.
- Parisi presented evidence of a long course of meritless litigation by Mazzaferro against Parisi, threatening letters to employers and realtors, and in‑person harassment of Parisi’s granddaughter at her workplace.
- Mazzaferro admitted writing many of the letters but denied intent to harass and asserted their truth. The trial court found Mazzaferro not credible and concluded the communications were defamatory and intended to harass.
- The court issued a restraining order prohibiting certain written communications and required prior submission of communications to government agencies that named protected persons; it also required a bond if Mazzaferro sought a hearing regarding the court’s approval.
- On appeal Mazzaferro challenged sufficiency of the evidence, asserted First Amendment and petition clause prior‑restraint problems with the order’s scope, and objected to the bond and inclusion of Parisi’s grandson as a protected person.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for § 527.6 restraining order | Parisi: letters and pattern of vexatious litigation show willful course of harassment causing substantial emotional distress | Mazzaferro: letters are true; no unlawful harassment occurred | Held: Evidence substantial; course of defamatory/harassing conduct proven; restraining order valid |
| First Amendment / prior restraint | Parisi: communications were defamatory, private concern, not protected; injunction limited to unlawful statements | Mazzaferro: order imposes unconstitutional prior restraint on speech and petitioning | Held: Court may enjoin repetition of statements judicially found unlawful, but the specific personal‑conduct provisions were overbroad/vague and must be narrowed |
| Requirement to submit government‑directed communications for court review (prior approval) | Parisi: necessary to prevent continued harassment and protect employment/reputation | Mazzaferro: unlawful gatekeeping of petition rights and prior restraint | Held: Court can monitor/enjoin unlawful communications, but cannot bar true petitioning to governmental or federal forums; prior‑approval term must be narrowed on remand |
| Bonding requirement for seeking a hearing on denied communications | Parisi: bond is reasonable security for fees given plaintiff’s difficulty collecting and defendant’s history | Mazzaferro: bond is an impermissible prefiling restraint and unenforceable against a defendant | Held: Under equitable authority the bond was not an abuse of discretion here (applies only when defendant seeks affirmative relief), so bonding requirement stands as fashioned by trial court |
Key Cases Cited
- Harte-Hanks Communications, Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657 (U.S. 1989) (First Amendment analysis requires independent review of statements and context)
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (U.S. 1964) (scope of First Amendment protection for speech about public matters)
- DVD Copy Control Assn., Inc. v. Bunner, 31 Cal.4th 864 (Cal. 2003) (courts must independently examine record for First Amendment issues; prior restraints closely scrutinized)
- Balboa Island Village Inn, Inc. v. Lemen, 40 Cal.4th 1141 (Cal. 2007) (injunction may bar repetition of judicially determined unlawful statements; orders must be narrowly tailored)
- Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1990) (defamation law protects reputation; truth is a defense)
- Aguilar v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc., 21 Cal.4th 121 (Cal. 1999) (injunction prohibiting repetitive unlawful speech under civil statutes can be constitutional)
- Planned Parenthood Golden Gate v. Garibaldi, 107 Cal.App.4th 345 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) (injunctions can limit rights abused by party; equities of enforcement and tailoring considered)