Ribstein v. Marx, B338174

Marx and Ribstein were former business associates; Marx alleged Ribstein conspired to transfer $165,657.13 from her bank accounts without authorization. 1
Ribstein petitioned for a civil harassment restraining order, alleging Marx and her mother were harassing and threatening him, his associates, and his family. 2
The court denied emergency relief, then held a hearing after ordering advance exchange of witness and exhibit lists. 3
At the hearing, Ribstein presented evidence of threatening calls, a visit to his home by Marx and her mother, and calls to his business associates. 4
Marx denied making the calls and argued her mother was acting independently or that the contacts related to her fraud lawsuit. 5
The court found harassment under section 527.6, issued a three-year CHRO protecting only Ribstein, and Marx appealed. 6

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficient evidence Marx engaged in harassment 7	Ribstein showed Marx acted with her mother in threatening calls and visits.	Marx said her mother acted alone except for the home visit.	Substantial evidence supported Marx's involvement. 8
Future harassment likely to recur 9	Conduct stopped only after service, and the underlying dispute continued.	No reasonable probability of future harm was shown.	Future repetition was reasonably probable. 10
Whether conduct met section 527.6 harassment definition 11	Repeated calls, threats, and home visit were a nonlegitimate course of conduct causing distress.	No violence, and at most one incident or protected petitioning activity.	The conduct constituted harassment. 12
Due process notice at CHRO hearing 13	The petition was a simple form and advance exchanges gave adequate notice.	Marx was ambushed because the petition lacked specifics about dates and her mother.	The petition and prehearing disclosures were sufficient. 14
Scope of CHRO overbroad 15	The order lawfully covered conduct needed to prevent future harassment.	The order should reach only past proven acts and should allow her lawsuit efforts.	The CHRO was not overbroad. 16

Olson v. Doe, 12 Cal.5th 669 (Cal. 2022) (section 527.6 provides an expedited procedure for civil harassment relief 17)
Schild v. Rubin, 232 Cal.App.3d 755 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991) (defines section 527.6 harassment and its elements 18)
Yost v. Forestiere, 51 Cal.App.5th 509 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (petitioner must show harassment and a reasonable probability of repetition 19)
Hansen v. Volkov, 96 Cal.App.5th 94 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023) (substantial-evidence review applies even under the clear-and-convincing standard 20)
Conservatorship of O.B., 9 Cal.5th 989 (Cal. 2020) (appellate courts defer to credibility findings and reasonable inferences 21)
E.G. v. M.L., 105 Cal.App.5th 688 (Cal. Ct. App. 2024) (reviewing court views evidence favorably to the prevailing party and defers to credibility determinations 22)
Harris v. Stampolis, 248 Cal.App.4th 484 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (harassment must be likely to recur in the future 23)
Severson & Werson, P.C. v. Sepehry-Fard, 37 Cal.App.5th 938 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (procedural due process is reviewed de novo 24)
Duronslet v. Kamps, 203 Cal.App.4th 717 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (section 527.6 hearings may admit relevant hearsay 25)
City of Ripon v. Sweetin, 100 Cal.App.4th 887 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion 26)