Winlock v. Williams CA1/5

Filed 4/29/16 Winlock v. Williams 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

COLETTE D. WINLOCK, Plaintiff and Respondent, A144742 v. PATRICE WILLIAMS, (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. RG15756037) Defendant and Appellant.

The trial court issued an injunction protecting Collette D. Winlock from Patrice Williams (Code Civ. Proc., § 527.6). Patrice Williams appeals. She contends: (1) insufficient evidence supports the issuance of the restraining order; and (2) there is not a reasonable probability of future harm. We disagree and affirm.1 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).)

1 Unless noted, all further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure. Winlock’s failure to file a respondent’s brief means we decide the appeal on the record, the opening brief, and Williams’s oral argument, “reversing only if prejudicial error is shown.” (Nakamura v. Parker (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 327, 334; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.220(a)(2).)

1

In 2014 and 2015, Winlock was the executive director of a “mental service agency.” In 2014, Williams was an intern at the agency and the two women worked together. In January 2015, Winlock requested an injunction prohibiting Williams from coming near, or contacting, her. In her request (form CH-100), Winlock alleged Williams pursued a relationship with her; when Winlock told Williams a romantic relationship “was not possible[,]” Williams began sexually harassing her. In June 2014, Williams sent Winlock “sexually explicit emails” and text messages requesting “a relationship.” When advised her behavior was inappropriate, Williams threatened to commit suicide, claiming Winlock “had rejected her.” Williams continued to pursue an “inappropriate relationship” with Winlock and became angry when Winlock rejected her advances. In October 2014, Williams attended an agency event “with intent to disturb the peace[,]” and brought “a promise ring and a check for $250” to Winlock’s office. Around that same time, Williams “loitered” around Winlock’s car, made coworkers uncomfortable by asking about Winlock, and filed a lawsuit against Winlock. Williams also sent Winlock emails threatening to make Winlock “pay for causing her pain.” In January 2015, Winlock received a violent and threatening voicemail expressing “[g]ay bashing views.” Williams alleged she was unsettled and “unsure of [her] safety when [Williams] is around” and feared Williams would harm her. In her written opposition, Williams admitted sending Winlock sexually explicit emails and text messages, leaving Winlock a promise ring and a check, and appearing around Winlock’s workplace in late 2014. Williams, however, claimed she attended the agency event in October 2014 “without any intent to act out” and denied leaving a threatening voicemail for Winlock in January 2015. Williams claimed she filed a lawsuit against Winlock because of “emotional stress” caused when Winlock “neglect[ed]” her. In one of several supporting declarations, Williams alleged she “would never purposely create any problems” for Williams. At a March 2015 hearing on the injunction request, the court stated it had “read the e-mails that Ms. Williams allegedly sent to Ms. Winlock.” Williams admitted sending