Greg Hill & Associates Home
Award Recipient
Top 100 Trial Attorneys in the United States
Contact Us for a Free Consultation
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.
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.
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
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.In 50 Words or Less, What Happened?: Santa Monica, ex-girlfriend seeks restraining order from our client living in Washington State, restraining order denied.
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.
Our client was living in Washington State and had been for about fifteen years when his ex-girlfriend filed a request for a restraining order. Our client was served at his parent’s home in Northern Washington state. He was shocked. He was also amazed to read that petitioner claimed our client was stalking her through a camera in her computer, phone calls and letters.
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 CourthouseIn fact, due to the very long period of time since the two had even seen each other, our brief argued that petitioner’s continued focus on such an imaginary relationship and her bizarre claims demonstrated she was, in a way, obsessed with him, rather than he being obsessed with her as she claimed.
The Santa Monica judge hearing the matter agreed with our client’s brief that petitioner simply did not allege enough to allow him to grant such a restraining order. Petitioner actually was unprepared to argue at all, apparently expecting a windfall by default. The judge, however, did not grant our request for attorney fees.
Our client was happy with the victory. His “ex” was denied the “last say” or “last punch” in an odd relationship. He was happy to move on in his life.
For more information about the issues in this case summary, click on the following articles:
Contact us.
The Santa Monica judge hearing the matter agreed with our client’s brief that petitioner simply did not allege enough to allow him to grant such a restraining order. Petitioner actually was unprepared to argue at all, apparently expecting a windfall by default. The judge, however, did not grant our request for attorney fees.
Our client was happy with the victory. His “ex” was denied the “last say” or “last punch” in an odd relationship. He was happy to move on in his life.
For more information about the issues in this case summary, click on the following articles:
Watch our video about restraining orders by clicking here.
Contact us.
