Diamond View Limited v. Herz
California Court of Appeal
[Opinion certified for partial publication.*]
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
SPARKS, J.
Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6 authorizes a “person” who has been harassed to obtain an injunction prohibiting any further ha rassment. The principal question in this case is whether a business entity is a person within the meaning of the statute. We hold that it is not.
Defendant Paul Herz appeals from the granting of an injunction pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6 restraining him from alarming, annoying or harassing Diamond View Ltd. (Diamond View), a limited partnership, and its manager, Kit Doering.(Doering), and requiring him to remain outside the…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Moyer v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1973
- T. M. Cobb Co. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1984
- Chronicle Publishing Co. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1960
- Oil Workers International Union v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1951
- In-Home Supportive Services v. Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1984
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Hassan v. Mercy American River HospitalCalifornia Supreme Court · 2003
- Schild v. RubinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
- Thomas v. QuinteroCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
- McWilliams v. City of Long BeachCalifornia Supreme Court · 2013
- Scripps Health v. MarinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1999
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.