Salman v. Emerson CA4/3
G059659
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jul 21, 2021Background
- Beginning circa 2007, defendant Orion Emerson repeatedly sent hostile emails to his sister Genene Salman, mocked her religion, and created a website (DouchebagsExposed.com) accusing her of supporting terrorism.
- Emerson sent multiple abusive emails in 2019–2020 (including praising the New Zealand mosque shootings and disparaging language) and distributed material to Salman's coworkers and employer, prompting an internal investigation at her college.
- Salman sought a domestic violence restraining order on September 14, 2020, attaching emails, a copy of the employer letter, and website excerpts; a temporary order issued and a hearing was set.
- Emerson filed a response with exhibits but did not appear at the November 2, 2020 hearing; the court proceeded after finding he had notice and effectively defaulted.
- Salman testified about emotional distress, professional embarrassment, anxiety, and depression caused by Emerson’s communications; the trial court found a pattern of harassment and issued a five-year domestic violence restraining order (ordering removal of harassing posts but denying control of the website).
- On appeal Emerson argued the evidence did not support harassment (and alleged perjury); the Court of Appeal applied the substantial-evidence standard and affirmed the restraining order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Emerson’s conduct constituted harassment under Code Civ. Proc. § 527.6 (course of conduct causing substantial emotional distress) | Salman: Emerson’s series of abusive emails, website posts, and contact with her employer constituted a course of conduct that alarmed and caused her substantial emotional distress | Emerson: Communications did not legally constitute harassment; evidence insufficient to support restraining order | Affirmed. Substantial evidence (emails, website, testimony) supported the trial court’s finding of harassment and issuance of the domestic violence restraining order |
| Whether alleged perjury by Salman requires vacating the restraining order | Salman: Her written and oral statements were truthful and supported the court’s findings | Emerson: Salman committed perjury, so the order should be lifted | Rejected. Appellate review is limited to substantial-evidence review; credibility determinations rest with the trial court and the record supports the finding of harassment |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Saunders, 55 Cal. App. 4th 1158 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) (trial court factual findings receive limited appellate review)
- Bowers v. Bernards, 150 Cal. App. 3d 870 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984) (explains substantial-evidence review scope)
- Conservatorship of Walker, 206 Cal. App. 3d 1572 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989) (circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences count as substantial evidence)
- City & County of San Francisco v. Ballard, 136 Cal. App. 4th 381 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (a single credible witness can constitute substantial evidence)
- CADC/RADC Venture 2011-1 LLC v. Bradley, 235 Cal. App. 4th 775 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (view the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment on substantial-evidence review)
- In re Michael G., 203 Cal. App. 4th 580 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (describes deferential nature of substantial-evidence standard)
- Cooper v. Bettinger, 242 Cal. App. 4th 77 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (domestic violence restraining orders are decided by a preponderance of the evidence)