1 Filed 4/28/15 Wax v. Mayfield CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE

NINA WAX,
Plaintiff and Appellant, A142531
v. (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. JENNIFER LEE ANN COLLINS MAYFIELD, RG14723395)
Defendant and Respondent.

________________ _______________ ___________/
The trial court issued an injunction pr otecting Jennifer Lee Ann Collins Mayfield
and her husband from Nina Wax (Code Civ. Proc., § 527.6). 1 Wax appeals in propria persona. She contends the court erroneously interpreted section 527.6, and insufficient evidence supports the injunction. We disagree and affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDUR AL BACKGROUND
“We summarize the facts in the light most favorable to the judgment.” ( Brekke
v. Wills (2005) 125 Cal.App. 4th 1400, 1405 ( Brekke ).) Mayfield and her husband liv e in Oakland. They have two dogs. Wax and her partner, Michael Hardesty, live three houses aw ay from Mayfield and her husband. In April 2014, Mayfield requested an injunction requiring Wax to stay 50 yards away from her and her husband. In her request (For m CH-100), Mayfield stated she and her

1 All further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.2 husband “have been harassed” by Wax and Hardesty “via letters, phone calls, [and] complaints” to the Oakland Police Depart ment (Police Department) and Oakland Department of Animal Control (Animal Cont rol), “as well as fliers being passed around our neighborhood slandering us and our pets as well as giving out our personal information without our consent.” Mayfield alleged the harassment was “ongoing since Aug[ust] 2012” and that Wax intimidated her and displayed a “threatening manner”
toward her. The injunction request attached: (1) no tices Mayfield received from the Police Department and Animal Control reflecting co mplaints made about Mayfield’s dogs in 2012 and 2013; (2) a flyer encouraging ne ighbors to report excessive barking from Mayfield’s dogs and that the “fence keepin g them” from nearby ch ildren “is flimsy[;]” (3) a description of Wax’s constant complain ts about Mayfield’s dogs and her behavior toward Mayfield and her husband, and ot her neighbors; (4) a pe tition signed by 25 neighbors stating Mayfield’s dogs “are NOT a public nuisance to the neighborhood[;]” (5) a declaration from one neighbor averri ng the “barking has stopped” and “the problem has been addressed and solved[;]” and (6) a declaration from the manager of a neighboring apartment building stating Wax gave him a flyer about Mayfield’s dogs, averring his tenants had “no formal complaint” about the barking, and opining the dogs’ “presence may have reduced any unwanted activities” near his apartment building. Mayfield also submitted pictures of her bac kyard fence and the dogs’ outdoor kennel. In her written opposition, Wax denied harassing Mayfield and her husband and explained, “[c]omplaining a bout barking dogs is not hara ssment. A neighbor has the right to complain to a city ag ency about disruption of their [ sic ] right to peace and quiet in and around their [ sic ] residence and to take action fo r redressing this nuisance.” Wax claimed the flyers accurately described how the dogs barked excessively and jumped against Mayfield’s fence. Wax also cl aimed many of the neighbors who signed the petition “do not live near [Mayfield], thus th ey were not probably able to hear her barking dogs.”3 Eight witnesses testified for Mayfield at the hearing on the request for an injunction. Mayfield’s husband testified the complaints to An imal Control ranged “from the dogs barking, to them being aggre ssive, to them not having food and water, to them not having proper she lter, to them sleeping outside in the rain, to them trying to break down a fence.” Mayfield’s husband ex plained he and his wi fe “invest[ed] in barking collars” and “a sonic aide to help de tour the dogs from barking. We have put them in a covered kennel. All to try to rectify a problem of having Animal Control constantly being called on our dogs.” Neig hbors testified the dogs were well behaved, gentle, and friendly, and that other neighbo rhood dogs barked mo re than Mayfield’s dogs without complaint from Wax. Mayfield ’s husband testified his dogs “do not bark excessively” and were being “singled out.” He also testified he pr ovided the dogs with adequate food and shelter, and the fence around their property was secure. Mayfield testified she is afraid of Wax. According to Mayfield, Wax “constantly” calls her, the Police Department and Animal Control to complain about the dogs, screams and stares at Mayfield, a nd records Mayfield while she is walking outside Wax’s house. Mayfield’s husband described an incident where he saw Wax on his property, trying to incite the dogs. Wa x screamed at him about the dogs “barking all day and night” and about city noise or dinances. Mayfield’s husband testified he
does not “feel comfortable or safe” aroun d Wax, and had installed cameras on the
exterior of the house because he wa s concerned about his dogs’ safety.
Several witnesses described interactions with Wax and testified they too are afraid of her. One neighbor testified she tries “to have limited contact with [Wax]”
because she had seen Wax “bu lly people[.] ” Another neig hbor described an incident where Wax displayed “aggressive behavior” to ward a third neighbor. Another neighbor
testified about an incident where Wax ran toward her w ith a curling iron, and an incident where Wax “ran across the street, char ged at [her]” with an air horn, and blew the horn in her face. That neighbor cl aimed Wax “follows [her] everywhere[,]” watches her constantly, hits her, and calls he r derogatory names. A woman who dog sat for Mayfield described an incident where Wax stood on the sidewalk near Mayfield’s4 house and “bark[ed] like a dog towards” the house. Another dog sitter described how Wax frequently drives by Mayfield’s house, st ops in front of the house, and stares at people inside the house. 2
The court issued a written order court th oroughly describing the evidence offered at the hearing and finding Mayfield and the “witnesses testifying on her behalf to be credible and compelling. The court does not find the testimony of [Wax] credible.”
The court concluded Wax “embarked on a course of conduct designed to harass” Mayfield and her husband “by complaining about thei r dogs where little or no legitimate cause existed. He r actions included attempting to bait the dogs to strengthen her claims, making continuous and harassing phone calls without identifying herself, putting notes threatening legal action in [M ayfield’s] mailbox, and posting flyers throughout the neighborhood which included [Mayfield’s] private information. Many of these actions were taken despite the fact that [Mayfield] had long before bought a kennel for the dogs and [put] bark control co llars on both dogs. . . . [T]he court does not believe that [Wax’s] actions were in any wa y motivated by a legitimate concern for or annoyance caused by [May field’s] dogs. The evidence es tablishes that [Wax’s] actions were intended to harass” Mayfield. Th e court also concluded Mayfield suffered
“substantial emotional distress” as a resu lt of Wax’s actions. The court observed Mayfield “lives in a constant state of anxi ety,” “worries when th e police will again be called to her house[,]” and had “altered her way of living in response” to Wax’s actions. The court issued a three-year inju nction prohibiting Wa x from contacting Mayfield and her husband “either directly or indirectly, in any way, including, but limited to, in person, by teleph one, in writing. . . .” The in junction also prohibited Wax from harassing, intimidating, or molesting Mayfield and her husband, or disturbing their peace, and from destroying their personal property.

2 Wax and Hardesty testified at the h earing. Among other things, Wax claimed she called Animal Control because the dogs barked constantly. She denied calling Mayfield or distributing flyers in the neighborhood. Hardesty provided similar testimony.5 DISCUSSION The Legislature enacted se ction 527.6 “‘to protect the individual’s right to pursue safety, happiness and privacy as gua ranteed by the California Constitution.’ [Citations.] It does so by providing expedited in junctive relief to victims of harassment. [Citation.]” ( Brekke, supra, 125 Cal.App.4th at p. 1412; Thomas v. Quintero (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 635, 648.) Section 527. 6 enables “[a] person who has suffered
harassment” — defined as “unlawful violence , a credible threat of violence, or a knowing and willful course of conduct dire cted at a specific person that seriously alarms, annoys, or harasses th e person, and that serves no legitimate purpose” — to seek “an injunction prohibiting harassment as provided in this section.” (§ 527.6, subds. (a)(1), (b)(3).) “The course of co nduct must be such as would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emot ional distress, and must actually cause substantial emotional distress” to the part y seeking the injunction. (§ 527.6, subd. (b)(3).) A judge may issue an injunction pursuant to se ction 527.6 upon “clear and convincing evidence that unlaw ful harassment exists[.]” (§ 527.6, subd. (i).) We uphold the injuncti on if there is any reasonable, credible evidence,
contradicted or uncontradict ed, supporting the court’s findings and order. (See Schild v.
Rubin (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 755, 762.) “I n assessing whether substantial evidence supports the requisite elements of willful harassment, as de fined in . . . section 527.6,
we review the evidence before the trial cour t in accordance with th e customary rules of appellate review. We resolve all factual c onflicts and questions of credibility in favor of the prevailing party and indulge in all le gitimate and reasonable inferences to uphold the finding of the trial court if it is su pported by substantial evidence which is reasonable, credible and of solid value.” ( Id. at p. 762.) Wax challenges the injunction on various gr ounds, none of which have merit.
The court did not — as Wax contends with out any supporting authority — abuse its discretion by “wrongly interpreting” section 527.6. Nor is the ev idence insufficient to support the injunction. Am ple evidence supports the court’s conclusion that Wax exhibited a “knowing and willf ul course of conduct” directed at Mayfield that6 “seriously alarm[ed], annoy [ed], or harasse[ed]” Mayfie ld, and that “serve[d] no legitimate purpose.” (§ 527.6 , subd. (b)(3).) The evidence at the hearing demonstrated Wax called Mayfield constantly, complained to the Police Department and Animal Control without cause, and encouraged Ma yfield’s neighbors to lodge baseless complaints against Mayfield. She incited Mayfield’s dogs, screamed at Mayfield’s husband, and acted in a threaten ing manner toward Mayfield.
The evidence was also more than sufficient to support the conclusion that Wax’s conduct actually caused Mayfield substan tial emotional distress and would cause a reasonable person such distress. (§ 527.6, subd. (b)(3); Brekke, supra, 125 Cal.App.4th at p. 1413.) Mayfield and her husband testif ied they were afraid of Wax and feared for their safety and the safety of their dogs to the point they installed security cameras on the exterior of their house. Numerous neig hbors testified they were afraid of Wax and had seen her “bully people” and display “aggressive behavior.” That Wax has an explanation for her conduct or a different interpretation of the evidence does not demonstrate a lack of evidence to support the injunction. Nor has Wax demonstrated the injunction somehow violat es her right to “make ano nymous complaints regarding crime, blight, [or] noise.”
DISPOSITION The injunction issued pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6 is
affirmed. In the interests of justice, the parties are to bear their own costs on appeal.7 _ ____________ ____________ Jones, P.J.

We concur:

_____________ ____________ Needham, J.

_____________ ____________ Bruiniers, J.