Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 24PSCV03832, Date: 2025-05-14 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24PSCV03832 Hearing Date: May 14, 2025 Dept: 6
CASE NAME: Alexis Camacho v. Tony Lam, et al.
Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
TENTATIVE RULING
The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order without prejudice. The Court also DENIES Defendants’ request for sanctions.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.
BACKGROUND
This is a premises liability case. On November 7, 2024, plaintiff Alexis Camacho (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendants Tony Lam (Lam), Future is Now Realty & Construction, Inc. (Property Manager) (collectively, Defendants), and Does 1 to 50, alleging causes of action for premises liability and general negligence.
On April 10, 2025, Plaintiff moved for a temporary restraining order. On May 7, 2025, Defendants filed their late opposition. Plaintiff did not reply.
LEGAL STANDARD
“(a)(1) A person who has suffered harassment as defined in subdivision (b) may seek a temporary restraining order and an order after hearing prohibiting harassment as provided in this section.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 527.6, subd. (a)(1).)
“(b) For purposes of this section, the following terms have the following meanings: (1) ‘Course of conduct; is a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose, including… sending harassing correspondence to an individual by any means, including, but not limited to… email… (3) ‘Harassment’ is… 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 527.6, subds. (b)(1), (b)(3).)
PRELIMINARY ISSUES
Defendants’ opposition was filed on May 7, 2025 and is untimely. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).) Nevertheless, the Court exercises its discretion to still consider the opposition, but admonishes Defendants to comply with the requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure going forward. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1300, subd. (d); Juarez v. Wash Depot Holdings, Inc. (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 1197, 1202.)
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff seeks a temporary restraining order against Defendant Lam under Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6 prohibiting Lam from engaging in direct or indirect communication with Plaintiff by any means during the pendency of this action. Plaintiff indicates that she was previously a tenant in a building managed by Defendant Property Manager and was the prevailing party in an actions against Property Manager for negligence in maintaining the subject property, which was resolved by a settlement in Plaintiff’s favor in the amount of $500,000.00. Plaintiff indicates that starting on February 22, 2025, Defendant Lam sent a series of emails to Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel in which Lam verbally attacked Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel in connection with Plaintiff’s vacating of the subject property and accusing Plaintiff’s counsel of engaging in unethical conduct. Plaintiff’s counsel indicates having attempted to stop Lam’s emails by asking Lam directly to stop such emails and by asking Lam’s counsel to intervene, but to no avail. Plaintiff contends Lam and Lam’s counsel are engaging in harassing conduct against Plaintiff, and that Plaintiff has suffered severe distress. Plaintiff contends Lam’s emails serve no valid purpose and are retaliation against Plaintiff for prevailing in the other case.
The Court finds Plaintiff’s motion unavailing. The Court does not find Lam’s emails to be without a legitimate purpose. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 527.6, subds. (b)(1), (b)(1).) Lam’s emails address issues regarding the return of Plaintiff’s security deposit and other matters relating to the dispute between the parties. (See Habbas Decl., Exs. A-G.) Lam’s emails also appear to be written primarily in response to multiple emails from Plaintiff’s counsel. (See Habbas Decl., Exs. A-G.) It also appears to the Court that Plaintiff’s counsel initiated the contact by sending multiple emails directly to Lam and Property Manager before later contacting their counsel about the emails. Indeed, Lam’s counsel is not copied on any of the emails for the month of February 2025. (See Habbas Decl., Exs. A-F; Cal. Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 4.2, subd. (a), comment 1 [rule against contacting represented parties applies even if the represented person initiates or consents to the communication].) Additionally, the rule against contacting represented parties applies only to attorneys; it does not apply to the parties themselves. (Id., rule 4.2, comment 3.) Additionally, Plaintiff provided no declaration from herself indicating the extent to which she has purportedly suffered mental distress because of Lam’s emails. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 527.6, subd. (b)(3).)
Nevertheless, the Court admonishes both Plaintiff and Lam (and Property Manager for that matter) to communicate with each other through their respective counsel so that problems like this can be avoided going forward. Should these problems continue, the Court would be open to reconsidering a temporary restraining order.
Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES the motion without prejudice.
CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order without prejudice. The Court also DENIES Defendants’ request for sanctions.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.