According to Busch v. Bradburn: "The legislative history of section 527.6 shows the court's policy considerations were proper. Before section 527.6 was enacted, victims of harassment could only bring a civil action for damages under an invasion of privacy or intentional infliction of emotional distress theory. (See Assem. Com. on Judiciary, Digest of Assem. Bill No. 3093 (1977-1978 Reg. Sess.) April 27, 1978, p. 1.) The legislative history further shows section 527.6 regulates a type of conduct that is similar to, and in many cases more severe than, criminal conduct. (Assemblywoman Leona H. Egeland, letter to Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Sept. 7, 1978, p. 1.) However, the Legislature determined that petitioners could too easily abuse a statute that imposed a criminal penalty. After the Assembly Committee on Criminal Justice recommended against a criminal harassment statute, the Legislature proposed a civil remedy to provide swift, effective relief. (Id. at p. 2.) "[S]ection 527.6 is not an ordinary civil action. [Citation.] The statute provides for an action to be completed in a matter of weeks and incorporates an expectation that victims may often seek relief without the benefit of a lawyer." (Siam v. Kizilbash (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1563, 1573 (Siam).)"