Santa Monica, Restraining Order Denied Against Our Client

Our client, age 49, had not seen his “ex-girlfriend,” age 47, in over seventeen years, but the two had mutual friends that kept our client and his ex-girlfriend informed about each other’s opinions, work status and location. Petitioner also made persistent derogatory remarks about our client to mutual friends, who regularly relayed such comments to our client.

In 50 Words or Less, What Happened?: Santa Monica, ex-girlfriend seeks restraining order from our client living in Washington State, restraining order denied.

To call our client the ex-boyfriend and the petitioner his ex-girlfriend was really quite an exaggeration. The two had met on a movie set in Southern California in 1995. They then went on a dinner date, which really was not even a date, as petitioner’s sister went along. There were no other dates. The two just worked together for a few weeks on a movie set. Their e-mail contact thereafter was minimal and there were no phone calls.

Our client had never lived in Southern California, except for from 1984 to 1988, six months in 1993 and during a movie shoot in 1995, when he met petitioner. Our client and petitioner, then and still living in Santa Monica, obviously saw something in each other, but the relationship never started, especially because our client felt petitioner lacked respect for him when she brought her sister along on their first and only date.
If there ever were a case wherein a party has filed a restraining order request hoping that the other party would not appear to contest it, this was it. Our client’s ex-girlfriend obviously hoped for a no-show by our client, a victory by default and bragging rights to her friends, who would then gossip about it. Such a victory would also suggest that an impartial judge had determined our client was a threat and would legitimize petitioner’s criticism of our client.

Our client then called Greg Hill and faxed over what he was served. Greg Hill prepared a lengthy brief, with a request by our client for an award of $2,500 in attorney fees for having to defend against petitioner’s meritless claim. The brief showed how, under both the Family Code (section 6200, et seq.) and the Code of Civil Procedure, § 527.6(b), that petitioner failed to establish sufficient facts to allow the Court to find harassment, stalking or abuse.

Santa Monica Courthouse

---