Holland v. Majumdar CA1/1

Filed 12/22/15 Holland v. Majumdar CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

JENNIFER ANN HOLLAND, Plaintiff and Respondent, A144647 v. SRIPARNA MAJUMDAR, (San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. CCH15576536) Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant Sriparna Majumdar challenges a civil harassment restraining order issued against her on the grounds that the order is not supported by substantial evidence, is overbroad, and violates her First Amendment rights. We are not persuaded by these arguments, and we affirm. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The record of the trial court proceedings is minimal, but we can discern the following background: On January 12, 2015, respondent Jennifer Holland, a dance instructor, petitioned the trial court to issue a civil harassment restraining order against Majumdar. In seeking the restraining order, she alleged that “[Majumdar] comes out to the venues where I teach classes. [Majumdar] appears to be obsessed with my personal life, talking to others and spreading false information about me. [Majumdar] has sent my friend, Ken W[.], 1,217 emails mentioning me specifically. Currently, these emails are sent by [Majumdar] multiple times a day.” Holland also alleged, “I fear for my safety. I

1

want my peace of mind back. I am 5 months pregnant, and I am concerned about my and my baby’s health. This person ([Majumdar]) has increasingly and repeatedly speculated about my unborn child. She is obsessed. I must protect myself and my unborn child.” Copies of five e-mails referencing Holland that Majumdar apparently sent to Holland’s friend were attached to the request. The day after the request was filed, the trial court entered a temporary restraining order against Majumdar. Majumdar filed an opposition to a permanent restraining order, and along with her opposition she submitted a signed declaration. In it, Majumdar attested that her relationship with Holland’s friend “makes [Holland] upset and furious,” and she attested that her “only problem with [Holland] is the fact that [Holland] has burglarized my residence while I was away from the U.S.” and is “pursuing this restraining order as a way of cover-up for her criminal actions in burglarizing my residence.” Majumdar also stated that she had not engaged in or threatened “any unlawful physical violence.” A hearing was held on February 4, 2015, and the record reflects that Majumdar introduced into evidence two police reports, and both parties testified. But no transcript on the hearing appears in the appellate record, and the record is silent on whether other evidence was considered. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court issued an order restraining Majumdar for a period of one year from directly or indirectly harassing, contacting, or trying to obtain Holland’s location by means that included, but were not limited to, specified methods including “[S]kype.” It also directed Majumdar to stay at least 10 yards away from Holland, Holland’s home, Holland’s job or workplace, and the child-care facility of Holland’s children.