What points to stress in a civil harassment suit with an altercation?
In a California civil harassment matter under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 527.6, the most important points to emphasize are the respondent’s knowing and willful conduct, the existence of a course of conduct or credible threat of violence, and the fact that the petitioner need not have been the initial aggressor if the respondent’s conduct still meets the statutory definition of harassment.[1][2] If the case involves a physical altercation, you should also stress that the respondent’s actions were unprovoked, unjustified, and not lawful self-defense, because “unlawful violence” includes assault and battery but excludes lawful self-defense.[2]
Key Points to Stress
1. The statutory elements under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 527.6
A petitioner seeking relief must show harassment as defined by statute, which includes:
- Unlawful violence
- A credible threat of violence
- A knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that:
- seriously alarms, annoys, or harasses,
- serves no legitimate purpose, and
- would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress,
- and actually causes substantial emotional distress. [2]
The court in Leydon v. Alexander, 212 Cal. App. 3d 1 (1989) held that “harassment” requires a series of acts over a period of time, however short, and a single incident was insufficient under the version of the statute then at issue.[3] Current statutory language remains centered on the same course-of-conduct framework, with “constitutionally protected activity” excluded.[2]
2. In a physical altercation, focus on who used force and why
If petitioner did not initiate contact, stress:
- the respondent initiated the physical contact;
- the respondent’s conduct constituted assault and/or battery;
- the conduct was not in self-defense or defense of others;
- any force used was disproportionate or continued after any perceived threat ended;
- the conduct was part of a pattern or accompanied by threats, stalking, or repeated unwanted contact.
That matters because Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 527.6 defines “unlawful violence” to include assault or battery, but expressly excludes lawful self-defense.[2]
3. Show the encounter was not a mutual breach of peace or invited escalation
If the respondent argues mutual combat or provocation, the facts should be framed to show:
- petitioner did not consent to the contact;
- petitioner attempted to disengage, retreat, or avoid escalation;
- respondent escalated the situation;
- any prior communications or history show intentional targeting.
This is especially important because a court may be reluctant to characterize a single flare-up as “harassment” unless it clearly fits the statutory categories.[3]
4. Emphasize corroboration and objective evidence
For credibility and proof, highlight:
- police reports,
- 911 recordings,
- medical records,
- photos or video,
- eyewitness statements,
- contemporaneous texts/emails,
- prior threats or prior incidents.
Because the petitioner bears the burden of proving harassment, objective evidence is often critical to show the encounter was not a mere mutual argument but a qualifying act of unlawful violence or threatening conduct.
Practical framing
A strong presentation usually sounds like this:
Respondent intentionally made physical contact with petitioner without consent, outside any lawful self-defense, and the conduct either constituted unlawful violence itself or occurred as part of a broader course of harassing conduct that seriously alarmed and emotionally distressed petitioner, with no legitimate purpose.
Caution
If the matter is based on only one isolated physical incident, be prepared to address the course-of-conduct issue carefully. Under Leydon v. Alexander, 212 Cal. App. 3d 1 (1989), a single incident was not enough under the statute as then construed, although current petitions can still proceed if the facts fit “unlawful violence” or a “credible threat of violence” under the present statutory language.[2][3]