Watanabe v. Majumdar CA1/1

Filed 3/1/16 Watanabe v. Majumdar CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

KENNETH TOMOMI WATANABE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A144650 v. SRIPARNA MAJUMDAR, (San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. CCH15576535) Defendant and Appellant.

Sriparna Majumdar challenges a civil harassment restraining order against her on the grounds that the order is not supported by substantial evidence, is overbroad, and violates her First Amendment rights. We affirm.1 I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In January 2015, Kenneth Watanabe petitioned the trial court to issue a civil harassment restraining order against Majumdar. Majumdar and Watanabe met through their involvement in the “swing dance community.” In support of his petition for a restraining order, Watanabe alleged, “For about the last four years, [Majumdar] has written over 4700 emails and texts and calls my cell phone, even though I have repeatedly told her to stop. [Majumdar] appears to be obsessed with me, believing that we are dating and love each other, even though I have repeatedly told her that I do not 1 By its terms, the restraining order expired on February 4, 2016, one year after it was entered. We decline to decide whether the appeal is moot because neither party has raised the issue and we reject Majumdar’s claims on the merits.

1

love her or even consider her a friend.” He further alleged that “[a]fter repeated requests to not make any contact or communication with me, [Majumdar] visited my residence and rang the doorbell, claiming that I had invited her, when, in fact, I had not.” Watanabe asserted, “[A]lthough I was not physically harmed or injured, I was upset by her ignoring of my request to avoid contact with me.” He asked for an order requiring Majumdar to stay 150 yards away from him and his home and workplace. Attached to Watanabe’s request were nine pages of printed electronic messages that Majumdar apparently sent to him, including some exchanges between Majumdar and a third person, Nathan Dias, on which Watanabe was copied. Majumdar filed a response and a signed declaration. In the declaration, she asserted that she had ended a dating relationship with Watanabe and had “never harassed or threatened or stalked [Watanabe] in any way.” A hearing was held on February 4, 2015, and the record reflects that Majumdar introduced into evidence two police reports. But the record is silent about whether other evidence or testimony was considered. No transcript of the hearing appears in the appellate record. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court issued an order restraining Majumdar for a period of one year from harassing, intimidating, molesting, attacking, striking, assaulting, hitting, or abusing Watanabe, and from destroying his personal property or disturbing his peace. The order also prohibited Majumdar from directly or indirectly contacting Watanabe by a variety of written and electronic methods, “including Skype” (capitalization omitted), and it required Majumdar to stay at least ten yards away from Watanabe, his home, and his workplace. The court specifically found that the order was “based on unlawful violence, a credible threat of violence, or stalking.”