California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Skomal v. Hupp, D074084 (Cal. App. 2019):
A person who has suffered harassment may seek an injunction prohibiting further harassment. (Code Civ. Proc., 527.6, subd. (a)(1).) As relevant here, " '[h]arassment' is . . . 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 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." (Id., 527.6, subd. (b)(3).) A " '[c]ourse of conduct' is a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose, including . . . making harassing telephone calls to an individual, or sending harassing correspondence to an individual by any means . . . ." (Id., 527.6, subd. (b)(1).) If after a hearing the trial court "finds by clear and convincing evidence that unlawful harassment exists, an order shall issue prohibiting the harassment." (Id., 527.6, subd. (i).) "An injunction restraining future conduct is only authorized when it appears that harassment is likely to recur in the future." (Harris v. Stampolis (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 484, 496 (Harris).)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.