Opinion
G061483
07-07-2023
CATHERINE ELIZABETH GRAHAM, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. ELIZABETH HOPPE, Defendant and Respondent.
Catherine Elizabeth Graham, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Liebert Cassidy Whitmore, Mark H. Meyerhoff and Viddell Lee Heard for Defendant and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, No. 30-2022-01255000 Glenn Mondo, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed.
Catherine Elizabeth Graham, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Liebert Cassidy Whitmore, Mark H. Meyerhoff and Viddell Lee Heard for Defendant and Respondent.
OPINION
SANCHEZ, J.
Plaintiff Catherine Elizabeth Graham, a student at an optometry school, appeals from an order denying her request for a civil harassment restraining order against defendant Elizabeth Hoppe, the dean of the optometry school. The trial court denied plaintiff's request because plaintiff failed to prove harassment by clear and convincing evidence. The court noted there was no evidence defendant did anything other than engage with plaintiff pursuant to her role as dean of the optometry school.
Plaintiff raises two arguments on appeal. First, she contends she suffered harassment under Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6 because defendant engaged in a knowing and willful course of conduct that annoyed and harassed plaintiff and served no legitimate purpose. Second, she argues the trial court should have conducted mental competency proceedings for defendant prior to trial. We disagree with plaintiff's contentions and affirm the order.
All further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.
FACTS
Plaintiff's Request for a Civil Harassment Restraining Order
In April 2022, plaintiff requested, in propria persona, a civil harassment restraining order requesting the trial court order defendant to stay at least 100 yards away from plaintiff, her home, and her vehicle. Plaintiff also requested the court order defendant to not harass her, contact her, respond "to any of [her] online activities," "communicate about any of [her] online activities to others or ask or direct anyone else to act on her behalf," or "[t]ake any action to follow in any way any of [her] in-person or online activities." The request listed plaintiff's parents, brother, and Dr. David Baron, her "[h]onorary [d]ad," as "[a]dditional [p]rotected [p]ersons."
In support of the request, plaintiff alleged defendant was the dean at Western University of Health Sciences College of Optometry where plaintiff was a student. She generally alleged "[u]nderneath the [university's] facade [was] a cult subculture," which involved "following" and "stalking" "those who know about the cult and do not choose to be a part of it." She further claimed, "Those in higher positions within the cult are . . . able to order subordinates to harass others, both in person and online." The harassment allegedly included "pestering via notifications and reminders, unauthorized access of private information on personal devices and accounts, . . . threats of physical harm," and "affecting students' academic record." With respect to her own alleged harassment, she claimed defendant and Western University of Health Sciences "failed to respect boundaries and [her] decision to transfer to another school."
The request attached nine exhibits (exhibits A through I), which supposedly reflected "instances of harassment that [affected plaintiff's] academic record." Exhibit A is a March 20, 2022 letter of recommendation for plaintiff from James Cohen to the New England College of Optometry. The letter contained positive comments about plaintiff and also included some typographical errors.
Exhibit B includes plaintiff's July 2020 letter to defendant requesting to rejoin the class of 2022 at Western University of Health Sciences College of Optometry and defendant's subsequent denial of that request. According to plaintiff's letter, she withdrew voluntarily from the class of 2022, later reapplied to the optometry program, and was readmitted to the entering class of 2024. In denying her request, defendant noted plaintiff was admitted as a member of the matriculating class of 2024 and wished her success with "this second chance being offered to [her]."
Exhibit C includes: (1) August 2021 e-mails in which plaintiff asks defendant to prepare a letter of academic standing to facilitate her transfer to the New England College of Optometry; (2) a student information release form signed by plaintiff; and (3) defendant's August 2021 letter regarding plaintiff's academic standing to the New England College of Optometry. In the student information release form, plaintiff authorized the optometry school to release "[a]cknowledgement of [her] request to transfer to another optometry program" and "[c]ertification of [her] good academic standing." In defendant's letter to the New England College of Optometry, defendant noted plaintiff was enrolled at Western University of Health Sciences College of Optometry from August 2018 to February 2020 when plaintiff voluntarily withdrew from the program. The letter explains plaintiff re-enrolled in August 2020 to join the class of 2024 and was currently in good academic standing. Finally, the letter noted plaintiff had three prior instances of academic probation status. Relying on exhibit C, plaintiff alleged defendant "violated FERPA [the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act] in writing th[e] letter." Plaintiff claimed, "the instances of so-called 'probation' are examples of the ways of the cult to affect student records."
Exhibit D consists of August 2021 e-mails between plaintiff and defendant discussing plaintiff's request to retake quizzes she had missed to avoid failing a course. Defendant offered plaintiff the opportunity to retake a quiz to earn additional points in the course, and plaintiff declined the offer. Plaintiff argued exhibit D is evidence that defendant "failed to respect" plaintiff's request to stop offering her opportunities she repeatedly declined.
Exhibit E includes e-mails between plaintiff and a professor. In those emails, plaintiff tells the professor she wanted to report that one of the questions on a quiz was "invalid." After the professor asked for clarification, plaintiff ambiguously stated she wanted to maintain the academic integrity of exams and asked the professor to make sure quiz questions were valid. Relying on exhibit E, plaintiff argued the error in the quiz as referenced in the e-mails were "rules of the cult." She also claimed exhibit E "is an example of how the threats of the cult are hidden."
Exhibit F includes a January 2022 e-mail from defendant to plaintiff. In the e-mail, defendant asked plaintiff to verify her enrollment for the spring 2022 term as required by the United States Department of Education. Relying on exhibit F, plaintiff argued defendant could have obtained her enrollment verification from the registrar's office. Plaintiff added: "There are processes within the cult, such as through the Office of the Provost, that had tried to enact a restraining order within that system. These [emails] from [defendant] were sent directly to me after those processes were enacted and despite the order of restraint having not been revoked."
Exhibit G is a January 2022 e-mail from defendant to plaintiff stating she and Dr. Angela Hegamin would like to meet with plaintiff "for a touch-base and feedback session." Exhibit H is a February 2022 e-mail from plaintiff to Dr. Beverly Guidry. Among other things, the e-mail states: "Audrey Vasquez stopped by to deliver a letter, stating that it was from [defendant]. I did not accept the letter and asked Audrey to return it to the sender. I don't know what issues you have at the school, and frankly, I don't care to know. However, this is the third documented instance of [defendant] persisting to communicate with me after I have asked university administration to ask her to stop. Please persuade [defendant] of the importance of distance. If the issue continues, I will need to report a complaint with various accreditation organizations and other agencies." Relying on exhibit H, plaintiff argued the incident was the third time defendant had tried to contact her even though she had told people in leadership positions that defendant needed to stop.
The record on appeal does not identify the roles Dr. Hegamin or others had at Western University of Health Sciences College of Optometry. We accordingly refer to the individuals referenced in various e-mails by their names alone.
Exhibit I is a February 2022 e-mail from defendant stating the e-mail recipients were receiving "this email because University Student-Employee Health Services does not have a record of your booster shot." The e-mail included a link where students could access information about the policy and submit documentation. Plaintiff claimed this e-mail was another example of defendant "offering 'opportunities' with her."
Finally, in addition to exhibits A through I, plaintiff noted an additional example of alleged harassment in March 2022. Plaintiff was walking into a room on campus and defendant "was sitting outside the door, about 20-25 feet away." Defendant "made some comments to [plaintiff]." Plaintiff added, "Although I had been afraid enough about my physical well-being at other points in time throughout the past two years while these events were happening, I'd like to think that I've gained a lot of robustness since then. Now I worry about those who are less robust, who fear for their safety, and who would be interacting with me or in my vicinity. This restraining order is filed in large part in the hopes of protecting their peace and peace of mind when interacting with me."
In April 2022, the trial court denied plaintiff's request for a temporary civil harassment restraining order without prejudice. The court found the facts in plaintiff's request did not "sufficiently show acts of violence, threats of violence, or a course of conduct that seriously alarmed, annoyed, or harassed [plaintiff] and caused substantial emotional distress." The court also found "no legal basis for [a temporary restraining order] as to family members who do not reside with" plaintiff and further noted plaintiff sought relief outside the scope of section 527.6. The court then issued an order to show cause and set a hearing for May 2022.
In May 2022, defendant filed a response to plaintiff's request for a civil harassment restraining order. Defendant argued plaintiff did not present a single allegation of harassment. Instead, defendant argued she engaged with plaintiff as she was required to do pursuant to her role as dean of a school where plaintiff was enrolled as a student.
The Court's Denial of Plaintiff's Request for a Civil Harassment Restraining Order
At the outset of the May 2022 hearing, the trial court noted it could not issue an order protecting plaintiff's family members who did not reside with her or to "honorary dads." The court also noted there are three definitions of harassment under section 527.6, and the alleged conduct would not be harassment unless it fell within one of those definitions.
Plaintiff then testified defendant never physically assaulted her, but she claimed defendant had said or done things constituting credible threats of violence. According to plaintiff, defendant directed faculty members who made threats to plaintiff. She provided an example where two lab instructors said she could lose an eye if she did not "get polycarbonate for [her] classes." When asked how the reference to polycarbonate was a threat of harm, plaintiff claimed, "Polycarbonate is an analogy to a situation that would be safer by affiliating with a group . . . or the optometry school or with a university as a whole." She also testified she "had strong reason to believe" "those threats were directly or indirectly" coming from defendant. When asked if there was any conduct by defendant that seriously alarmed, annoyed, or harassed plaintiff and that served no legitimate purpose, plaintiff offered to read a three-page "response" to defendant's opposition papers. The trial court recessed the hearing so the court and defendant's counsel could review the response. The trial court subsequently summarized the response on the record.
Defendant testified she had not spoken to the two lab instructors about polycarbonates. When asked by plaintiff if she had violated section 527.6 or if she would in the future, defendant testified she had not and would not violate section 527.6.
The trial court denied plaintiff's request and found plaintiff failed to prove harassment by clear and convincing evidence. The court emphasized there was no evidence defendant did anything other than act in accordance with her position as dean of the optometry school.
Plaintiff timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff contends the trial court erred by denying the restraining order. She claims defendant engaged in conduct constituting harassment under section 527.6, and the court should have held a hearing to establish defendant's mental competence prior to trial. Neither argument has merit. Plaintiff has not shown defendant's conduct constituted harassment, and there was no evidence suggesting defendant was incompetent.
Applicable Law and Standard of Review
Section 527.6, subdivision (a)(1) allows a victim of harassment to seek an order to prohibit harassment. "'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 that which would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and must actually cause substantial emotional distress to the petitioner." (Id., subd. (b)(3).)
We review a trial court's denial of a restraining order request under section 527.6 for abuse of discretion, and the court's factual findings (express and implied) are reviewed for substantial evidence. (Parisi v. Mazzaferro (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 1219, 1226, disapproved on other grounds in Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 1010, fn. 7; Salazar v. Eastin (1995) 9 Cal.4th 836, 849-850.)
The Court Did Not Err
Plaintiff contends she suffered harassment because defendant engaged in a knowing and willful course of conduct that annoyed her and served no legitimate purpose. She bases this argument on exhibits A, C, and H, which were attached to her request. We address each in turn below.
With respect to exhibits A and C, plaintiff argues they "affect[ed] [her] academic record, and [are] a major source of substantial emotional distress ...." As noted, ante, exhibit A was a letter of recommendation for plaintiff from James Cohen to the New England College of Optometry. Although the letter contained positive comments about plaintiff, she implies defendant tampered with the letter because it contained typographical errors. This argument is based on pure speculation, and plaintiff presents no evidence that defendant actually tampered with the letter. (FLIR Systems, Inc. v. Parrish (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1270, 1277 [an injunction must be based on evidence, not speculation].) Relying on exhibit C, plaintiff contends defendant's letter to the New England College of Optometry included information to which plaintiff had not consented, namely a discussion of her 2020 withdrawal from the university and her three periods of academic probation. She also complains the letter did not acknowledge she wanted to transfer schools. Plaintiff's argument does not withstand scrutiny. Defendant e-mailed the letter of academic standing to plaintiff who responded, "This is acceptable. Thank you for the document."
As discussed, ante, exhibit H is a February 2022 e-mail from plaintiff to Dr. Beverly Guidry complaining that a university employee attempted to deliver a letter from defendant, which plaintiff refused to accept. Plaintiff claims exhibit H "illustrates [her] distress at [defendant's] persistent attempts to communicate with her ...." But plaintiff presents no evidence defendant attempted to communicate with her other than in accordance with her position as dean of the optometry school. There also is no evidence the letter, which plaintiff never accepted, lacked a legitimate purpose.
Plaintiff next argues the court should have conducted mental competency proceedings for defendant prior to trial. She relies on the following statement in defendant's response to plaintiff's request for a restraining order: "Dean Hoppe has not engaged in . . . a knowing and willful course of conduct." Plaintiff claims this statement implies defendant "did not have the mental capacity to understand her course of conduct, and thus could not be charged with harassment." At the outset, plaintiff appears to be confusing criminal procedures with the instant case. Regardless, contrary to plaintiff's assertion, the sentence at issue merely states defendant did not engage in harassment. It makes no implied assertion about defendant's mental capacity.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed. Defendant shall recover her costs incurred on appeal.
WE CONCUR: GOETHALS, ACTING P. J., DELANEY, J.