Thompson CA1/1

Filed 6/25/15 Thompson CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

ERIN THOMPSON, Plaintiff and Respondent, A134728 v. W. B. COYLE et al., (San Francisco City & County Super. Ct. No. CCH11572687) Defendants and Appellants.

Defendants W.B. Coyle and David Gladstone appeal from restraining orders issued pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6,1 prohibiting them from harassing and requiring that they stay 100 yards away from, plaintiff Erin Thompson and her mother, Barbara Thompson. They contend the restraining orders are not supported by substantial evidence, interfere with their First Amendment free speech rights, and are overbroad. We affirm.2 Thompson was formerly an employee of Coyle, who was then a real estate broker and developer. Gladstone worked with Coyle. After Thompson left Coyle’s employment to start her own real estate business, she sought restraining orders and injunctions against the two men, claiming they were waging an increasingly aggressive campaign of harassment and intimidation. Thompson claimed the situation had gotten so bad, she was

1 All further statutory citations are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise indicated. 2 We conclude this matter is proper for disposition by memorandum opinion in accordance with California Rules of Court, standard 8.1.

1

fearful of her personal safety. The court issued temporary restraining orders on October 12, 2011, and reissued them when Thompson encountered difficulties serving Coyle. The court subsequently held a full hearing on Thompson’s petition for injunctive relief on December 16. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court granted the petition, finding by clear and convincing evidence that defendants’ conduct constituted unlawful harassment under section 527.6. The court accordingly issued injunctions on Judicial Council Form, prohibiting defendants from coming within 100 yards of Thompson, her mother, or real estate open houses Thompson holds. As to Coyle, the court subsequently modified the injunction to allow closer contact for “litigation-related activities” in lawsuits involving Thompson and Coyle. Defendants filed notices of appeal on February 14, 2012. A lengthy delay in the appellate process then ensued due to defendants’ egregious delays in securing a settled statement in lieu of a reporter’s transcript of the December 16, 2011, merits hearing on Thompson’s petition. The settled statement was finally filed with this court on March 27, 2014. Thompson filed her respondent’s brief in August 2014; defendants filed no closing brief. Substantial Evidence When the court issued the injunctions in December 2011, section 527.6 provided in relevant part: “(b) For purposes of this section, ‘harassment’ is 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. The course of conduct must be such as would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and must actually cause substantial emotional distress to the plaintiff.