Defendant’s Claims Of Litigation Privilege And Anti-SLAPP Law Protections Were No Defense Of Her Violations Of Restraining Order.
Self-represented husband and wife were involved in litigation through various lawsuits against self-represented ex-girlfriend of husband – claiming ex-girlfriend conspired with others to fraudulently obtain money, including substantial sums allegedly conned from husband. Husband’s relationship with ex-girlfriend ended just prior to the beginning of his relationship with wife.
Alleging harassing and intimidating conduct from wife, ex-girlfriend sought a restraining order in Wons v. Ferry, Case No. F073347 (5th Dist., July 13, 2020) (unpublished). The trial court, finding evidence of wife’s conduct justified issuance of a restraining order – but recognizing the parties remained embroiled in several pending litigations – issued a restraining order prohibiting contact between wife and ex-girlfriend except as necessary to participate in litigation, and ordering that such communication be conducted only in writing and to be not harassing in nature.
When wife violated this order, the trial court imposed $500 in sanctions against her. When wife continued to violate this order, the trial court imposed a second sanctions award against her in the amount of $1,000.
On appeal, wife argued that her communications with ex-girlfriend were not subject to restraint and sanctions because they were protected by the litigation privilege and anti-SLAPP laws. The 5th District didn’t buy it and affirmed. The restraining order did not preclude wife from contacting ex-girlfriend about the ongoing litigation. It simply limited the ways in which that contact could occur – in writing and without a harassing nature.
Wife’s arguments of litigation privilege and anti-SLAPP law protections failed because she was not restrained from or sanctioned for pursuing litigation, but for violating a valid court order warranted by her own behavior. Sanctions for violations of a restraining order are not precluded simply because the conduct occurs in the course of pending litigation.
Comments