C.S. v. R.M. CA3
The primary issue in this case is the intersection of the civil harassment statute, Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6, and the anti-SLAPP statute, section 425.16. Respondent C.S. filed requests for civil harassment restraining orders under section 527.6 against appellants R.M. and J.M. The requests alleged several instances of harassment including the filing of a false complaint about her dogs with animal control. After the trial court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO), appellants filed a section 425.16 motion to strike, asserting the anti-SLAPP statute applied due to the allegation regarding the complaint to animal control. The trial court denied the motion and, without a hearing, granted a protective order for two years.
Appellants contend the trial court erred in denying the motion to strike and extending the TRO without an additional hearing.
Comments on C.S. v. R.M. CA3