282 So.3d 965
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2019Background
- Khan and Deutschman had an 8–11 month on-again/off-again romantic relationship; they occasionally lived together and traveled together.
- Mid-November 2017 Deutschman ended the relationship, told Khan "this is permanent and no contact," and blocked him from phone and social media.
- Khan repeatedly attempted contact over months: texts, emails (Nov. 22, 29; Dec. 8, 15, 17; Jan. 17), a formal letter, flowers, and at least one phone call; Deutschman did not respond.
- Deutschman had Khan served with a cease-and-desist letter from her attorney and later had a sheriff’s deputy tell Khan to stop; Khan continued contact and delivered flowers after the deputy call.
- Deutschman alleged prior physical abuse (Khan struck her a year earlier) and testified she suffered anxiety, panic attacks, and sought therapy because of Khan’s continued contacts.
- The trial court found emails threatening/hectoring and malicious harassment, entered a one-year dating-violence injunction based on stalking; Khan appealed challenging evidentiary sufficiency.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence legally sufficient to support a dating-violence injunction based on stalking | Deutschman: Khan’s repeated unwanted contacts after explicit no-contact, after counsel’s cease-and-desist and sheriff contact, caused substantial emotional distress and were malicious harassment | Khan: Contacts were insufficient to constitute stalking; disputed facts and credibility undermine injunction | Affirmed — evidence legally sufficient to support stalking element and one-year injunction |
| Whether trial court abused its discretion or misapplied credibility determinations | Deutschman: Trial court properly weighed credibility and found harassment and maliciousness | Khan: Trial court erred by relying on contested testimony and should not have entered injunction | Affirmed — appellate court defers to trial court credibility findings and finds no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Pickett v. Copeland, 236 So. 3d 1142 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) (standard of review for injunctions and trial-court discretion)
- Jeffries v. Jeffries, 133 So. 3d 1243 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (trial court resolves witness credibility)
- Bouters v. State, 659 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 1995) (substantial emotional distress is an objective standard)
- Leach v. Kersey, 162 So. 3d 1104 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (totality of circumstances in assessing emotional distress)
- Biggs v. Elliot, 707 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (repeated following and telephoning can constitute stalking)
- Branson v. Rodriguez-Linares, 143 So. 3d 1070 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (stalking included within statutory definition of violence)
- Lopez v. Lopez, 922 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (stalking injunctions protect victims without a prior physical injury)
- Mitchell v. Brogden, 249 So. 3d 781 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) (reviewing evidence in the light most favorable to the petitioner)