R.D. v. P.M.
202 Cal. App. 4th 181
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- R.D., a licensed clinical social worker, obtained a 527.6 civil harassment restraining order against former patient P.M. in June 2009.
- After the first order expired in May 2010, R.D. believed harassment resumed due to a market confrontation, online defamation, flyers near her office and at her children's schools, and P.M.’s involvement with the schools.
- A renewed restraining order was issued on October 22, 2010, for three years, prohibiting P.M. from coming within 100 yards of R.D., her family, vehicles, and schools.
- P.M. appealed, arguing the facts do not support harassment and the order unconstitutional as to speech; the trial court ruled in favor of R.D. and the injunction.
- The appellate court held substantial evidence supports harassment and that the order is constitutionally permissible as a content-neutral time/place/manner restriction.
- The order also restricts P.M. from weapons; that provision was not challenged on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether substantial evidence supports harassment finding | R.D. argues continuing pattern after lapse shows likelihood of recurrence. | P.M. contends no post-2009 harassment or credible threat. | Yes; substantial evidence supports likelihood of further harassment. |
| Whether restriction is unconstitutionally broad or a prior restraint on speech | Restriction is content-neutral, narrowly tailored for safety. | Flyer distribution related to public concern and could be limited more. | No; restriction is content-neutral and narrowly tailored to prevent harassment. |
| Whether court could consider pre-expiration conduct in evaluating future harassment | Only post-order conduct should be considered. | Evidence of prior harassment contextualizes likelihood of recurrence. | Yes; court could consider prior conduct to determine risk of recurrence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brekke v. Wills, 125 Cal.App.4th 1400 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (content-neutral injunctions balancing safety and speech interests)
- Russell v. Douvan, 112 Cal.App.4th 399 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) (restraining orders aim to prevent future harassment)
- Madsen v. Women’s Health Center, Inc., 512 U.S. 753 (U.S. 1994) (content-neutral time/place/manner restrictions in speech cases)
- DVD Copy Control Assn. v. Burner, 31 Cal.4th 864 (Cal. 2003) (injunctions that are content-neutral may be upheld limited by necessity)
- Ensworth v. Mullvain, 224 Cal.App.3d 1105 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990) (trial court's injunction implies knowing, willful harassment and distress)
- Balboa Island Village Inn, Inc. v. Lemen, 40 Cal.4th 1141 (Cal. 2007) (permanent restriction on initiating contact may be overbroad; consider alternatives)
- Denham v. Superior Court, 2 Cal.3d 557 (Cal. 1970) (presumptions in support of validity of orders when record silent)