Cahill Contractors v. Carpenter CA1/1

Filed 7/15/13 Cahill Contractors v. Carpenter CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

CAHILL CONTRACTORS, INC., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. A136199 DEBRAY CARPENTER, (City & County of San Francisco Defendant and Appellant. Super. Ct. No. CCH-12-573310)

Defendant DeBray Carpenter appeals from the trial court‟s order enjoining him from committing further acts of violence or making further threats of violence against an employee of plaintiff, Cahill Contractors, Inc. He contends the court violated his constitutional rights to free speech, and that the findings against him were not supported by sufficient evidence that he had made a credible threat. We find no error and therefore affirm. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiff is a construction firm presently engaged in the construction of a low- income housing project in the Hunters Point neighborhood in San Francisco. On April 10, 2012, plaintiff filed a petition for a workplace violence restraining order under Code of Civil Procedure section 527.8,1 seeking an injunction prohibiting defendant from committing acts of violence or making threats of violence against one of its employees, Chris Parker. Parker is employed by plaintiff as a senior project manager.

1 Further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise indicated.

Plaintiff submitted Parker‟s declaration in support of its petition. In his declaration, Parker indicated that defendant and his father, Claude Carpenter (Carpenter), had repeatedly entered plaintiff‟s jobsite without permission to discuss their concerns about the local community and economic development. Parker had first met Carpenter at a tenant association meeting in November 2011. Subsequently, Carpenter told Parker that his company had made an unsuccessful bid on a painting contract for the Hunters Point project. At Carpenter‟s request, Parker looked into why his bid was not accepted. Parker learned that the bid was very high. Several companies had submitted lower bids, including the company that was selected for the job. Parker conveyed this information to Carpenter. On March 12, 2012, Carpenter made an unannounced visit to the jobsite and stated to Parker that in order to get the “results” he was hoping for with respect to the project, the project would have to be “shut down.” On March 30, 2012, Carpenter, defendant, and an unidentified woman entered the jobsite and set up a camera in front of the trailer where Parker‟s office is located. They then entered the trailer. Parker explained that cameras are not allowed on the property and that they needed to leave. At that point, defendant pulled out his cell phone, pointed it at Parker‟s face, and stated in a loud voice that he could record whatever he wanted to and that he would not leave. He began filming Parker with the cell phone‟s camera. Defendant was aggressive and belligerent, repeatedly threatening to have the worksite shut down. He said words to the effect that he could have 40 men come to the jobsite to shut it down whenever he wanted. On April 6, 2012, Carpenter and defendant again came on to the jobsite, and approached Parker while he was talking on his cell phone in front of the trailer. Defendant became angry almost immediately and began swearing at Parker in a loud voice. Parker asked defendant to stop swearing at him and, when he failed to do so, Parker asked him to leave. Defendant again pulled out his cell phone and began filming Parker. Parker objected and again asked him to leave. Defendant threatened to shut down the jobsite. At some point during the encounter, defendant said, “I‟m going to kick