Shaffer v. Sage CA1/5

Filed 6/18/15 Shaffer v. Sage 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

JAY DONALD SHAFFER, Plaintiff and Respondent, A143675

v. (Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. SCV256024) SHARON MARIE SAGE, Defendant and Appellant. ___________________________________/

The trial court issued an injunction protecting Jay Donald Shaffer from Sharon Marie Sage (Code Civ. Proc., § 527.6).1 Sage appeals in propria persona. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND “We summarize the facts in the light most favorable to the judgment.” (Brekke v. Wills (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 1400, 1405 (Brekke).) In 2014, Shaffer requested an injunction requiring Sage to stay 100 yards away from him. In his request (form CH-100) and supporting declaration, Shaffer stated Sage began “stalking and harassing” him after he “declined her advances.” Over a two- year period, Sage called Shaffer over 100 times, wrote him at least 15 letters, and came to his house several times and yelled at him. In these communications, Sage threatened to “hurt and kill” Shaffer — she said “‘I will kill you’” and “‘I’ll kick your ass.’” Shaffer described the instances where Sage threatened him with bodily injury and

1 All further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure. 1

death. Shaffer also described Sage’s criminal background, and a “frivolous small claims suit” Sage had filed against him. Shaffer’s declaration attached numerous documents, including a letter from the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Department stating Sage is a “‘[p]rolific [o]ffender’” with a lengthy criminal background. Shaffer averred he needed a “restraining order for [his] safety and protection” because he was “fearful that [Sage’s] behavior will escalate[.]” Shaffer sought medical treatment for the “incredible stress” Sage’s “repeated stalking” caused him — he “suffered from insomnia and severe anxiety” and “severe abdominal pain and gastric distress.” The court issued a temporary restraining order (form CH-110). In a lengthy written opposition, Sage explained her behavior. Among other things, she claimed: (1) the judge who issued the temporary restraining order was prejudiced against her; (2) Shaffer did “not need to get a restraining order” against her; (3) her arguments with Shaffer were “none of [the court’s] business[;]” and (4) her phone records established Shaffer was harassing her. The court held a hearing on the request for an injunction and heard testimony. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court issued a three-year injunction requiring Sage to stay 100 yards away from Shaffer, and prohibiting her from contacting Shaffer. The court later denied Sage’s “motion for reconsideration and dismissal” of the restraining order. DISCUSSION The Legislature enacted section 527.6 “‘to protect the individual’s right to pursue safety, happiness and privacy as guaranteed by the California Constitution.’ [Citations.] It does so by providing expedited injunctive 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 directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, annoys, or harasses the 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 conduct must be such as would cause a