Court Opinion

ID: 9906109
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-01 00:01:54.6187+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:06.283400
License: Public Domain

Filed 11/30/23 Williams v. Hefflin CA4/1

                 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.

                COURT OF APPEAL FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                 DIVISION ONE

                                         STATE OF CALIFORNIA

 JOSH WILLIAMS,                                                       D082235

           Plaintiff and Respondent,

           v.                                                         (Super. Ct. No. CVSW2201048)

 JAMES HEFFLIN,

           Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Riverside, Joni
Sinclair, Commissioner. Reversed.
         The Law Offices of John D. Gallegos and John D. Gallegos for
Defendant and Appellant.
         Josh Williams, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Respondent.

         James Hefflin appeals a Code of Civil Procedure1 section 527.6 civil
harassment restraining order prohibiting him from contacting Josh and

1        Undesignated statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.
Tamara Williams,2 a married couple, and their two grandchildren. Hefflin
contends: (1) the order was not supported by sufficient evidence of an
ongoing course of conduct or of substantial emotional distress; (2) a letter his
daughter’s attorney sent to the Williams family was protected by the
litigation privilege; and (3) the court abused its discretion by not granting his

anti-SLAPP motion (§ 425.16)3 based on that protected communication.
Finding merit in Hefflin’s arguments, we reverse the order.
              FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
      The Williamses and Hefflin were neighbors until the end of 2020. On
February 14, 2022, Josh filed a request for a temporary restraining order
against Hefflin, seeking protection for himself, his wife and two
grandchildren. He alleged Hefflin “was constantly showing up unannounced
more than the norm and almost demanding to make plans over us and our
grandchildren. Constantly, Mr. Hefflin made it seem that he has intitlement
[sic] to our grandchildren, and has threatened to take them, even telling
them he will adopt them if we do not. Mr. Hefflin even pressured us to move
to adoption with an attorney of his choice[.] . . . Mr. Hefflin continues to
threaten us with court and taking our grandchildren.” (Some capitalization
omitted.) Josh sought stay-away orders and “anything else that rationally
applies. We want to be safe, free and clear of Mr. Hefflin and family.” (Some
capitalization omitted.) Josh claimed he had a “fear of contact and retaliation
from Hefflin.” (Some capitalization omitted.)

2     We refer to the Williamses by their first names to avoid confusion, and
intend no disrespect.

3     “ ‘SLAPP’ is an acronym for ‘strategic lawsuit against public
participation.’ ” (City of Montebello v. Vasquez (2016) 1 Cal.5th 409, 413, fn.
2.)
                                        2
      Josh stated in the petition that he and his family were “mentally and
emotionally, constantly stressed,” and they were harassed “daily in some way
shape or form via phone, messaging of adults as well as the grandchildren,
and via social media with the kids, always asking for our location, and then
[Hefflin] would show up out of the blue and say he was in the area.” (Some
capitalization omitted.)
      Josh additionally requested the court prohibit Hefflin from contacting
them “through lawyers with made[-]up accussations, [sic] a year and a half
later” (capitalization omitted). That was an apparent reference to a February
12, 2022 letter that an attorney representing Hefflin’s teenage minor

daughter wrote to Josh and Tamara.4

4      The attorney, who also represented Hefflin below and now on appeal,
wrote to the Williamses that Hefflin’s family “shared in a parenting
relationship with” the Williamses’ grandchildren. The attorney stated the
Williamses were appointed permanent custodians of the grandchildren by a
Kansas juvenile court, and the grandchildren are now wards of California
and subject to its laws. The attorney wrote: “It has come to my attention
that you have fallen below these [best interest of the child] standards at least
during the period of January 2019 to date.” The attorney specified the
Williamses’ alleged failures in raising their grandchildren: (1) the Williamses
were failing “to provide medical and psychological care to the [grandchildren],
both of whom are mentally and emotionally disabled from being abused while
in the care of the mother”; (2) Josh “was accused of . . . abusing [the
grandchildren] while in [his] care”; (3) Josh “allegedly threatened to send the
[grandson] back to Kansas where he would end up back in foster care after
the reporting occurred . . . [and] allegedly threatened the [grandson] with
bodily injury if he were to continue to report” the abuse; (4) Josh “allegedly
discriminated against the [grandson] based upon his African[-]American
heritage by making inappropriate statements to him on this basis”; and (5)
Josh “allegedly used the [grandchildren] as conduits to direct [his] retaliation
toward [Hefflin’s daughter].” The attorney added, “After separating my client
and her family from the [grandchildren,] you thereafter alienated them and
poisoned the well by making disparaging remarks about the Hefflin’s [sic].”
                                       3
      Hefflin responded to the petition, stating in a March 2022 declaration
that he and his family “provided foster care for the [Williamses
grandchildren] . . . . During the time period as a foster care parent and
subsequent to that, my family was aware of neglect and abuse by [Josh]
toward his grandchildren.” Hefflin stated: “At some point in time, [Josh] was
named as the [g]uardian in Kansas for his grandchildren but never filed any
paperwork in California for said children, which he is required to do.
Recently my daughter received a threatening social media post from [Josh’s]
grandchild. This prompted [her] to write a letter . . . through counsel,
regarding the concerns she had with [Josh] as it was believed that he
prompted the threatening e[-]mail to my daughter through his grandson.”

      The attorney wrote that the Hefflins “cared for the [grandchildren]
because [the Williamses] were unwilling or unable to. This included having
them live at [the Hefflins’] home, feed them, purchase clothes, take them to
church, take them on family vacations, help them with schoolwork, take and
pay for their mental healthcare, meet with school officials to prevent
bullying, and set up educational accommodations so that [the grandson] could
remain in school. Additionally, the Hefflin’s [sic] took [the grandson] to
guitar lessons, gymnastics, and taught him basic carpentry skills.”
      The attorney wrote: “My client has and remains damaged by your
conduct and will seek compensation accordingly. One potential consequence
of your actions may be a petition to remove you as guardians of [the
grandchildren] and have them joined in a suit against you for damages as
well. At a minimum we will seek and obtain court[-]appointed counsel for the
[grandchildren] to monitor their care and see if they need temporary
placement. [¶] We are requesting that you participate in reunification
therapy. We further request that you cease and desist from using either of
the [grandchildren] as conduits to put out false information about [the
Hefflins] electronically, verbally, or by publication. Moreover, any false and
disparaging information about [the Hefflins] will be subject to a potential
defamation and slander claim. [¶] Within the next 10 days, we require
confirmation of the aforementioned reunification therapy, the defamation
issues, and accountability for the abuse. If we do not receive confirmation of
same, we will have no choice but to proceed with court intervention.”
                                       4
      Hefflin claimed the Williamses filed the restraining order petition the
day after his daughter’s attorney e-mailed the letter to them, and therefore it
“is a blatant attempt to silence my family regarding the conditions of the
[Williamses’ grandchildren]. Moreover, I have had no contact with the
[Williams] family since we moved from the Menifee area after we sold our
house in February of 2021 and moved to Palm Desert, California.” Hefflin
stated the petition is “moot.” Hefflin also reasoned insufficient evidence
supported the claim Josh suffered emotional injury, or that there was a
likelihood of future injury. He argued the petition sought to enjoin protected
activity and free speech, and it was improper under the anti-SLAPP statute.
      The court denied the petition for a temporary restraining order until
after holding a hearing.
Tamara’s Testimony
      At the March 2022 hearing on the petition, Tamara testified regarding
her concerns about Hefflin: “[W]e’re here because we are very worried about
our grandchildren. Mr. Hefflin has no family ties to us at all. He was a
neighbor. He was a friend. He continuously asks [sic] to see the kids before
he moved. And we would tell him no towards the end. And he would get
upset with us and start threatening us.” Tamara stated that after Hefflin
moved, they did not “have contact with him until recently. [¶] But knowing
Mr. Hefflin, once he started the communication again, he continues it. So we
called the police department as soon as we got this last demand letter from
his attorney . . . and they advised us to get a restraining order. We also had
counsel with a lawyer who also said we should get a restraining order
because of his past harassment.” Tamara added, “The main thing in that
demand letter, it said we’re going to take you to court and get reunification

                                       5
with the children. That’s what scares us, because we don’t want Mr. Hefflin
to have anything to do with the grandchildren.”
      Tamara stated the grandchildren were 15 and 13 years old respectively
at the time of the proceeding. She stated, “I think the court needs to
understand that Mr. Hefflin went above and beyond a lot of things when it
came to the kids. He overstepped boundaries.” She elaborated, “He bought
them cell phones without our permission and gave them to them. And then
used them to contact the kids without us knowing a lot of the time, things
like that.” Tamara explained that “during the last part of the relationship,
we noticed from the mid-part of it to the end of it, the kids were filming us
and taking pictures of where we were at—say at [stores], or some other
location. And [Hefflin] would show up out of the blue and be, like, ‘What a
coincidence. Here I am.’ ”
      Tamara testified: “[Hefflin] used the cell phones as a tool against us
because he would give them to [the grandchildren] when they were at his
house. They knew they weren’t allowed to have cell phones at our house. So
when [the grandchildren] came home, they would be upset because they
didn’t have a cell phone. [Hefflin] would say it’s a safety issue. So he
convinced us it’s a safety issue. So when we finally let the kids have cell
phones, he would use the cell phones to control them.” She testified that
Hefflin would tell the grandchildren, “If you guys don’t come over, I’m going
to turn your cell phone off.” Tamara stated Hefflin “had the ability to turn off
their service using his phone.” Tamara said this conduct continued for
approximately a year and a half.
      The court asked Tamara if Hefflin still had contact with the
grandchildren. She did not point to any recent interaction with Hefflin;
rather, she replied: “He knows their phone numbers, and he knows their e-

                                       6
mails. He used to stalk our grandson . . . on social media. At one point, he
had one of his family members—he says was a family member, I believe it
was Mr. Hefflin—disguise themselves as a teenage girl to get into contact
with our grandson. And then [Hefflin] told us about it afterwards.”
       Tamara showed the court some documents for its in camera review.
She described some of them as being letters from the grandchildren, and
others as e-mails showing Hefflin was “going to request visitation [and] has a
right to do so[.]”
Josh’s Testimony
       Josh explained the evolution of his family’s relationship with Hefflin:
“As time went on, we noticed—and it was pointed out to us by friends and
family, as well as neighbors, saying they notice things or heard things in our
discussions that they thought were not right, that were out of place. They
even said things like they thought [Hefflin] was grooming us and our
grandkids and our family. [¶] We started to shorten up our relationship.
And then Mr. Hefflin shows opposing attitude towards it, that he did not like
that we were ending the relationship. We were kicking him to the curb, so to
speak. I advised him through text messages and stuff that we weren’t doing
that. We just wanted to break it off and move on with our lives. We didn’t
want to continue with the relationship. [¶] The grandkids weren’t happy
with it at this point. We weren’t happy with it, based on instances over the
last period of the relationship that we felt was weird, disturbing, upsetting,
stressful. We felt threatened. [¶] As we moved to the point where we were
like, [‘]please leave us alone,[’] we called the Menifee Police Department and
asked them to go—if they would speak with him and have him leave us alone.
Quit texting us. Don’t try to communicate with us. We just wanted to end
it.”

                                        7
      Josh also explained that someone had called Child Protective Services
(CPS) about them and, as a result, CPS agents visited their home “and
discussed with my grandson—away from us—and discussed with me and
[Tamara] in the presence [sic] in the house with the kids. They went through
the home, discussed the issue with us, found no fault, no problems, and no
issues with anything. [¶] The sheriff then came after that and evaluated and
did the same thing with the home and the kids and everything, and asked the
kids questions separately. There was no problem there at that point in time.”
      Josh testified he regarded the attorney’s letter as a threat: “The reason
we’re filing the restraining order has nothing to do with anything or his letter
or what he says in the letter. It’s because [Hefflin is] sending us another
piece of information. We take it as a threat because he’s presenting himself
that he can send a letter to us, or a document to us, and do what he wants
with us at any given time.”
Hefflin’s Counterargument
      Hefflin did not testify at the hearing. But his attorney referred to
Hefflin’s declaration, which the court acknowledged reading. The attorney
raised the anti-SLAPP issue, arguing his letter to the Williamses related to
“protected activities. And the restraining order was simply brought because
these issues were raised, and [the Williamses] don’t want to deal with CPS.
. . . Mr. Hefflin has had no contact with them for, at minimum, a year. So it’s
clearly in response to a letter, a legal letter regarding protected activity . . . .
And that can’t constitute harassment, especially when it didn’t come from
Mr. Hefflin.” The court interjected, “The letter by itself may not constitute
harassment.”
      The court asked Hefflin’s counsel, “[Hefflin] hadn’t seen [the
grandchildren] for a year and a half . . . . He doesn’t know what’s going on

                                          8
with them,” adding, “What is Mr. Hefflin’s concern about these children that
are not his or in his custody?” Counsel replied, “[Hefflin] knows from contact
with the courts in Kansas that they’re not in the system here in California.
And he’s concerned about the children, as far as them acting out towards his
daughter, whether it be through the child or whether it be through [Josh]. So
he does have concerns about the well-being of his children as well as the
[Williamses’ grandchildren].”
The Court’s Ruling
      In granting the protective order, the court told Hefflin: “I don’t think
you have custody of the children. If you have concerns about their care, CPS
is the proper agency or any other agency. Sending letters through your
lawyer that are threatening—you’ve been gone for a year. I don’t know[.]”
Under the protective order, Hefflin is not to harass, intimidate, molest,
attack, strike, threaten, assault, hit, abuse, disturb personal property,
disturb the peace of the protected individuals. He must not contact them
directly, indirectly, or in any way, including by person, telephone, by public or
private mail, by e-mail, by text messages, or faxes, or any other electronic
means. Hefflin also must stay 100 yards away from the grandparents and
the grandchildren. The order expires in 2027.
                                 DISCUSSION
      Hefflin raises various issues, as stated above, but we need only address
his meritorious contentions that the letter his daughter’s attorney sent to the
Williamses was protected communication; therefore, the court improperly
relied on it in issuing the restraining order. Moreover, there was no instance
of existing harassment by Hefflin based on non-protected conduct to support
issuing the restraining order.

                                       9
A. Applicable Law
      Section 527.6, subdivision (a)(1), provides, “A person who has suffered
harassment as defined in subdivision (b) may seek a temporary restraining
order and an order after hearing prohibiting harassment as provided in this
section.” Subdivision (b)(3) of section 527.6 defines harassment as not just
unlawful violence, or a credible threat of violence, but also “a knowing and
willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms,
annoys, or harasses the person, and that serves no legitimate purpose.”
      The statute defines a “ ‘[c]ourse of conduct’ as a pattern of conduct
composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a
continuity of purpose, including following or stalking an individual, making
harassing telephone calls to an individual, or sending harassing
correspondence to an individual by any means.” (§ 527.6, subd. (b)(1).) “The
course of conduct must be that which would cause a reasonable person to
suffer substantial emotional distress, and must actually cause substantial
emotional distress to the petitioner.” (§ 527.6, subd. (b)(3).) “Constitutionally
protected activity is not included within the meaning of ‘course of conduct.’ ”
(§ 527.6, subd. (b)(1).)
      At the hearing on a petition for a civil harassment restraining order,
the court “shall receive any testimony that is relevant, and may make an
independent inquiry.” (§ 527.6, subd. (i).) The trial court may issue a
restraining order only after finding “by clear and convincing evidence” that
unlawful harassment exists. (Ibid.)
      “[W]hen presented with a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence
associated with a finding requiring clear and convincing evidence, the court
must determine whether the record, viewed as a whole, contains substantial
evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could have made the finding of

                                       10
high probability demanded by this standard of proof.” (Conservatorship of
O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 1005.) “Consistent with well-established principles
governing review for sufficiency of the evidence, in making this assessment
the appellate court must view the record in the light most favorable to the
prevailing party below and give due deference to how the trier of fact may
have evaluated the credibility of witnesses, resolved conflicts in the evidence,
and drawn reasonable inferences from the evidence.” (Id. at p. 996.)
      “[W]hether the facts, when construed most favorably in [petitioner’s]
favor, are legally sufficient to constitute civil harassment under section 527.6,
and whether the restraining order passes constitutional muster, are
questions of law subject to de novo review.” (R.D. v. P.M. (2011) 202
Cal.App.4th 181, 188; accord, Harris v. Stampolis (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th
484, 497.)
      This court’s precedent governs this case. We have held that protective
orders apply prospectively only: “[T]he express codified purpose of a
prohibitory injunction is to prevent future harm to the applicant by ordering
the defendant to refrain from doing a particular act. [Citations.]
Consequently, injunctive relief lies only to prevent threatened injury and has
no application to wrongs that have been completed. [Citation.] It should
neither serve as punishment for past acts, nor be exercised in the absence of
any evidence establishing the reasonable probability the acts will be repeated
in the future. Indeed, a change in circumstances at the time of the hearing,
rendering injunctive relief moot or unnecessary, justifies denial of the
request. [Citations.] Moreover, not only can injunctive relief be denied where
the defendant has voluntarily discontinued the wrongful conduct [citation],
there exists no equitable reason for ordering it where the defendant has in
good faith discontinued the proscribed conduct [citation]. ‘Thus, to authorize

                                       11
the issuance of an injunction, it must appear with reasonable certainty that
the wrongful acts will be continued or repeated.’ ” (Scripps Health v. Marin
(1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 324, 332–333.)
      In Scripps Health, we concluded the court erred by issuing a permanent
injunctive order because the person enjoined (Marin) had changed his
behavior, and there was no likelihood of future threats: “The TRO was
vacated four days after its issuance based on Marin’s express representation
he would stay away from Scripps Health facilities pending the evidentiary
hearing, leaving him unrestrained during the approximately two months
before the evidentiary hearing. During this time, Scripps Health
acknowledged Marin’s mother again was taken to a Scripps Health facility
and remained overnight before being discharged. Marin made no threats of
violence or caused any violence while his mother was a patient at the facility.
Thereafter, his mother transferred her health insurance to Sharp Healthcare,
rendering it unlikely she would have to return as a patient to a Scripps
Health facility. Consequently, given the circumstances surrounding this
single incident, the evidentiary record does not establish the likelihood Marin
would repeat any violent acts against Scripps Health employees.
Accordingly, the order granting the permanent injunction must be reversed.”
(Scripps Health v. Marin, supra, 72 Cal.App.4th at p. 336.)
B. Analysis
      The parties agree, and the court accepted, that at the time of the
hearing, Hefflin was no longer the Williamses’ neighbor. The hearing
testimony established that in the interim since he moved and the time of the
instant proceeding, he had not contacted the Williamses for at least one year.
Both Josh and Tamara testified that the attorney’s letter prompted them to
seek the protective order. The court in its ruling specifically admonished

                                       12
Hefflin for “[s]ending letters through your lawyer that are threatening.”
However, the attorney’s letter dealt with his client’s claimed grievances with
the Williamses’ and their grandson relating to cyberbullying and the care of
the grandchildren, and ways to redress that. It did not contain any threats of
violence, and it was constitutionally protected litigation activity. (See
Hansen v. Volkov (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 94, 105 [opposing counsel’s e-mails
about a canceled deposition were perhaps “ ‘argumentative and self-serving
and entirely unnecessary,’ ” and “maybe also seriously annoying[; but] they
did not contain any threats of violence (credible or otherwise)” and thus were
constitutionally protected litigation activity]; Finton Construction, Inc. v.
Bidna & Keys, APLC (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 200, 210 [“ ‘all communicative
acts performed by attorneys as part of their representation of a client in a
judicial proceeding or other petitioning context are per se protected as
petitioning activity by the anti-SLAPP statute’ ”]; Cabral v. Martins (2009)
177 Cal.App.4th 471, 479-480 [same]; see also Rusheen v. Cohen (2006) 37
Cal.4th 1048, 1056 [litigation activities, including filing and prosecution of a
lawsuit by an attorney representing a client, constitute acts in furtherance of
a person’s right of petition or free speech]; Kolar v. Donahue, McIntosh &
Hammerton (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 1532, 1537 [“anti-SLAPP protection for
petitioning activities applies not only to the filing of lawsuits, but extends to
conduct that relates to such litigation, including statements made in
connection with . . . litigation”].)
      We point out the trial court was aware that constitutionally protected
activity could not constitute a harassing course of conduct (§ 527.6, subd.
(b)(1) [“Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning
of ‘course of conduct’ ”]), as it told Hefflin’s counsel at the hearing that the
attorney’s letter “by itself may not constitute harassment.” Nevertheless, the

                                        13
court did not point to any other nonprotected conduct to support its issuance
of the protective order. The court erred in considering the attorney’s letter as
part of Hefflin’s course of conduct of harassment. (§ 527.6, subd. (b)(1); see
Thomas v. Quintero (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 635, 663 [even if petitioner had
been seriously alarmed, annoyed or harassed by respondent’s conduct—a
public demonstration at petitioner’s church protesting petitioner’s eviction of
respondent—there was no showing that respondent’s injurious actions were
part of a “course of conduct” within the meaning of section 527.6 because the
conduct constituted a form of protected speech].)
      As the record does not show any recent incident of threat or
harassment by Hefflin towards the Williamses to support the issuance of the
protective order, the only reasonable conclusion is that the court relied on
Hefflin’s past conduct to support the protective order. But that was an
impermissible basis for the protective order under this court’s precedent as
set forth above. Even if the court believed Hefflin had, in the past,
improperly inserted himself into the Williamses’ relations with their
grandchildren, and caused them severe detriment, such conduct by Hefflin
had stopped for at least one year. Further, he had moved to a different city,
and he had refrained from any new incidents. Under the law, “the course of
conduct must be ongoing at the time the injunction is sought.” (Scripps
Health v. Marin, supra, 72 Cal.App.4th at p. 333; § 527.6, subd. (i) [the court
must find “unlawful harassment exists”].) Further, as stated, a protective
order should not punish past acts, nor be exercised in the absence of any
evidence establishing the reasonable probability the acts will be repeated in
the future. (Scripps Health, at p. 332; accord, Russell v. Douvan (2003) 112
Cal.App.4th 399, 401, 403.)

                                       14
                              DISPOSITION
     The order is reversed. Each party shall bear its own costs on appeal.

                                                    O’ROURKE, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

IRION, J.

CASTILLO, J.

                                    15