If you have no time to do anything else before your hearing, consider presenting the Judge with information form the example below.
No one can know all the law whether they are judges or not. During a trial, both sides can present pertinent law to the judge to help with the decision. Such a statement is called "points and authorities". The example below was used at a real trial. If your neighbor is trying to restrain you because of property dispute, the following statement of the laws and cases could be useful for your case. If you have time (in CH cases, usually one does not), it can be submitted to the judge in the form of a larger "trial brief", or, other process by filing it with the clerk. Or, more likely, your judge may allow you to present it during the hearing.
==== Example Points and Authorities ====
==== with special notes about property ===
THE LAW PROHIBITS THIS COURT FROM USING A CIVIL HARASSMENT SUIT TO RESOLVE A PROPERTY DISPUTE
Code of Civil Procedure §527.6,
the harassment statute, serves a very limited purpose. It was enacted
only to supplement existing invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of
emotional distress law where the victim is threatened with “great and irreparable
injury.” Nebel v. Sulk, 73 Cal.App.4th 1363, 1369 (1999). It
was not intended to supplant the normal procedures for obtaining injunctions
against non-harassing, albeit otherwise actionable, conduct, such as defamation
or interference with prospective advantage. Byers v. Cathcart, 57
Cal.App.4th 805, 811-12 (1997). It was designed solely to prevent severe
emotional distress; it was not designed to forestall economic losses or
protect property interests. Marquez-Luque v. Marquez, 192 Cal.App.3d 1513, 1517
(1987). Nor, because it lacks the opportunity for full research and
pleading, was it designed as a forum for resolving complex, disputed legal
issues. Byers, 57 Cal.App.4th at 808.
Consistent with this narrow purpose, injunctions prohibiting harassment pursuant to §527.6 may be issued in only very limited circumstances:
• In order to obtain an injunction, the plaintiff must prove by clear and convincing evidence that unlawful harassment exists. Code of Civil Proc. §527.6(d). Nebel, 73 Cal.App.4th at 1370 (emphasizing the need for “substantial evidence” of harassment); Schild v. Rubin, 232 Cal.App.3d 755, 761 (1991) (same); Compare Code of Civil Proc. §527.6(c) (requiring only a showing of “reasonable proof of harassment”).
• “Harassment” is defined as “unlawful violence, a credible threat of violence, or a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, annoys or harasses the person, and serves no legitimate purpose.” Code of Civil Proc. §527.6(b) (emphasis added). If the conduct serves a legitimate purpose, it cannot be the basis for this type of injunction regardless of how annoying or harassing it might be. Byers, 57 Cal.App.4th at 812 (holding that “legitimacy of purpose negates harassment”); Schild, 232 Cal.App.3d at 762. This is true even if the conduct may be enjoined following the full development of the facts and law in another legal proceeding in which purpose is not a relevant consideration. Byers, 57 Cal.App.4th at 812.
• The course of conduct must be “directed at a specific person,” must seriously alarm, harass or annoy that person, and must actually cause substantial emotional distress “to the plaintiff.” Code of Civil Proc. §527.6(b). Thus it is clear that the course of conduct must be directed at the plaintiff. Schild, 232 Cal.App.3d at 762. See also Diamond View Ltd. v. Herz, 180 Cal.App.3d 612, 618-19 (1986) (holding that the purpose of §527.6 was to provide a remedy to a specific individual who was himself harassed). This individual must be the recipient of harassing communications, not merely the subject of them. Code of Civil Proc. §527.6(b)(3) (defining “course of conduct” as specific communications “to an individual”). And that specific person, not someone else, must suffer substantial emotional distress. Schild, 232 Cal.App.3d at 762.1
• Moreover, the “course of conduct” must (1) be such as would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and (2) actually cause substantial emotional distress to the plaintiff. Code of Civil Proc. §527.6(b). This requirement is demanding. It is not enough to demonstrate mere discomfort or annoyance. Rather the plaintiff must prove that the emotional impact of the course of conduct was such that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it. Schild, 232 Cal.App.3d at 762-63. And the plaintiff must prove that he in fact did not endure it. Indeed, a court may require the plaintiff to submit medical or psychological evidence to prove that he actually suffered substantial emotional distress. Id.
• The breadth of an actionable “course of conduct” is expressly and substantially limited by the statute. Code of Civ. Proc. §527.6(b)(3). Most significantly, a course of conduct may not include any constitutionally protected activity. Code of Civil Proc. §527.6(b)(3); Nebel, 73 Cal.App.4th at 1370; Byers, 57 Cal.App.4th at 809; Leydon v. Alexander, 212 Cal.App.3d 1,5 (1989); Schraer v. Berkeley Property Owners’ Assoc., 207 Cal.App.3d 719, 723 (1989). Smith v. Silvey, 149 Cal.App.3d 400, 405-07 (1983). This limitation is essential. Without it the statute would be patently unconstitutional. See Smith, 149 Cal.App.3d at 407.2 The statute cannot apply even if the conduct was intended to harass and annoy and causes the victim to suffer actual emotional distress. Id. at 406.