When Your Back Is Against
the Wall, We Are Right There With You
the Wall, We Are Right There With You
What Counts as Harassment Under CCP 527.6
By Matthew Barhoma, Esq. — California State Bar No. 319339 | Last updated: November 2026
For a California civil harassment restraining order, “harassment” means one of three things under Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6: 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 that serves no legitimate purpose. The third category is the one most cases turn on, and it has limits built into it. The course of conduct must be a pattern, a series of acts and not a single incident. It must be the kind of conduct that would cause a reasonable person substantial emotional distress, and it must actually have caused the petitioner substantial emotional distress. Constitutionally protected activity does not count. The petitioner must prove all of this by clear and convincing evidence, and the judge must also find that the harassment is likely to continue. Rudeness, a single argument, an ordinary neighbor dispute, or conduct with a legitimate purpose is not harassment under the statute, however unpleasant. This page explains each element for people deciding whether to file and for people who have been served. The Restraining Order Law Firm tries civil harassment cases on both sides across Southern California. Call (888) 808-2179 for a confidential consultation.
The legal definition at a glance
| Type of harassment | What it means | Is one incident enough? |
| Unlawful violence | An assault, a battery, or stalking under Penal Code § 646.9; lawful self-defense is excluded | Yes, if future harm is likely |
| Credible threat of violence | A knowing and willful statement or course of conduct that would place a reasonable person in fear for their safety or their immediate family’s safety, and that serves no legitimate purpose | Yes, if future harm is likely |
| Course of conduct | A pattern of acts over any period of time, showing a continuity of purpose, that is knowing and willful, directed at a specific person, seriously alarming, annoying, or harassing, without legitimate purpose, and substantially distressing | No |
| Requirement that applies to every case | Source |
| Proof by clear and convincing evidence | CCP § 527.6(i)(1) |
| A reasonable probability the harassment will continue or recur | Russell v. Douvan (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 399 |
| The parties are not in a domestic relationship covered by the Family Code | CCP § 527.6(w) |
The full statutory text and a subdivision-by-subdivision explanation are on our CCP § 527.6 statute page.
Type one: unlawful violence
Unlawful violence is “any assault or battery, or stalking as prohibited in Section 646.9 of the Penal Code, but does not include lawful acts of self-defense or defense of others” (CCP § 527.6(b)(7)).
- Battery is any willful and unlawful use of force on another person: a punch, a shove, spitting, throwing an object that hits someone. No injury is required.
- Assault is an attempt to use force with the present ability to do so, such as swinging and missing.
- Stalking is willfully and repeatedly following or harassing a person and making a credible threat with intent to place the person in reasonable fear.
A single act of violence can be harassment. It does not automatically produce an order, though, because the order is an injunction against future conduct. In Russell v. Douvan (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 399, one lawyer battered another in an elevator. The Court of Appeal reversed the restraining order because the trial judge had not found that harm was likely to recur: “An injunction is authorized only when it appears that wrongful acts are likely to recur.” A fight between strangers who will never see each other again is unlawful violence, but may not support an order.
Self-defense is a complete answer. The statute excludes lawful self-defense and defense of others from the definition. A respondent who used reasonable force in response to an attack did not commit “unlawful violence.”
Type two: a credible threat of violence
A credible threat of violence is “a knowing and willful statement or course of conduct that would place a reasonable person in fear for the person’s safety or the safety of the person’s immediate family, and that serves no legitimate purpose” (CCP § 527.6(b)(2)).
Four points decide these cases.
- The test is objective. The question is whether a reasonable person would be afraid, not only whether this petitioner was.
- A threat can be conduct. No words are required. In Harris v. Stampolis (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 484, a parent who aggressively confronted a school principal, with a history of similar behavior, made a credible threat through conduct; the court noted that whether a threat “is conveyed by conduct or pure speech is irrelevant.”
- Context controls. The same words can be a threat or hyperbole depending on the history between the parties, the setting, and what followed. “You’ll regret this” in a business dispute is different from the same words after a physical confrontation.
- Intent to carry it out is not required. The threat must be knowing and willful. The petitioner does not have to prove the respondent meant to act on it.
Statements that are angry, insulting, or vulgar, but contain no threat of violence, do not fit this category. They may still be part of a course of conduct.
Type three: a course of conduct
Most civil harassment petitions involve no violence and no threat of violence. They allege a pattern: repeated messages, showing up, following, posting online, complaints to an employer, interference with daily life. The statute calls this a “course of conduct” and attaches five requirements to it. A petition fails if any one is missing.
1. A pattern, not an incident
A course of conduct is “a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose” (CCP § 527.6(b)(1)). The statute gives examples: following or stalking, harassing telephone calls, and harassing correspondence by mail, fax, or email.
- More than one act. In Leydon v. Alexander (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 1, one hostile incident in an office was held not to be a course of conduct, and the injunction was reversed.
- “However short.” The acts can occur over an afternoon. What matters is that there are several, and that they are connected.
- Continuity of purpose. Unrelated encounters between people who cross paths are not a pattern. The acts must share an aim.
2. Knowing and willful, and directed at a specific person
The respondent must have acted deliberately, and the conduct must be aimed at the petitioner. Accidental contact, conduct aimed at the public generally, and conduct the respondent did not know would reach the petitioner raise doubts on this element. It can be satisfied indirectly: in Brekke v. Wills (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 1400, a teenager wrote vicious letters to his girlfriend knowing and intending that her mother would read them, and the court held the letters were directed at the mother.
3. Seriously alarms, annoys, or harasses
The word “seriously” does real work. The statute is not aimed at ordinary friction between people. Conduct that is merely irritating, impolite, or unwelcome falls short.
4. No legitimate purpose
Conduct that serves a legitimate purpose is not harassment, even when the other person strongly objects to it. This is the element on which many petitions fail.
- In Byers v. Cathcart (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 805, neighbors disputed the right to park on a shared driveway easement. The court reversed the part of the injunction that prohibited parking, holding that “parking generally is not conduct having ‘no legitimate purpose,'” and that a property dispute cannot be resolved in a summary harassment proceeding.
- In Schild v. Rubin (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 755, a family’s basketball playing in their own yard, at reasonable hours, was not harassment of the neighbors.
Purposes courts have treated as legitimate include lawful debt collection, communication about shared children or property, serving legal papers, making good-faith reports to police or regulators, enforcing lease or homeowners’ association rules, and ordinary use of one’s own property. A legitimate purpose can be lost by the manner of pursuing it: one demand letter has a purpose; forty calls a day do not.
5. Substantial emotional distress, to a reasonable person and to the petitioner
The course of conduct “must be that which would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and must actually cause substantial emotional distress to the petitioner” (CCP § 527.6(b)(3)). There are two tests, and both must be met.
- Objective. Would a reasonable person in the petitioner’s position be substantially distressed? An unusually sensitive petitioner does not satisfy this.
- Subjective. Was this petitioner actually substantially distressed? In Schild v. Rubin, the court reversed because there was “no medical, psychological or other evidence” that the sound of basketball caused substantial emotional distress.
Expert or medical evidence is not required. In Ensworth v. Mullvain (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 1105, where a former client followed and kept watch on her therapist, the court held that substantial emotional distress may be inferred from the circumstances. Testimony about fear, lost sleep, changed routines, added security, missed work, or counseling is the usual proof.
What does not count: constitutionally protected activity
The statute states: “Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of ‘course of conduct.'” Acts that are protected speech or petitioning are removed from the count before the court asks whether a pattern exists.
- Litigation and petitioning. In Hansen v. Volkov (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 94, one lawyer obtained an order against opposing counsel based largely on emails about scheduling a deposition. The Court of Appeal reversed: the emails were protected litigation activity, and the one remaining incident was not a course of conduct. In Leahy v. Peterson (2023), the Fourth District held that filing a lawsuit against the protected person is protected activity and cannot be the basis for renewing an order.
- Speech on public matters. Commentary, reviews, reporting, and criticism on matters of public interest are protected. In Luo v. Volokh (2024), the Second District affirmed the dismissal of a petition aimed at a law professor’s writing about the petitioner’s court cases.
- Attending public proceedings. In Nebel v. Sulak (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 1363, an order barring a person from attending public court examinations was reversed as overbroad.
Protection has limits. Speech that is itself a threat, or private speech on private matters used to torment a specific person, is not protected. In Brekke v. Wills, the court rejected a free-speech defense to letters written to distress a private person. And a court may regulate conduct, such as proximity, without restricting speech at all (R.D. v. P.M. (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 181).
When a petition is built on protected speech or petitioning, the respondent can file an anti-SLAPP motion to strike it under Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16 (Thomas v. Quintero (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 635). And even when an order is justified, its terms may not broadly ban speech or bar access to courts and agencies (Parisi v. Mazzaferro (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 1219).
The requirement no one sees in the definition: future harm
A civil harassment order is not a penalty for what already happened. The California Supreme Court has described the procedure as one that “is not intended to punish the restrained party for past acts of harassment” (Olson v. Doe (2022) 12 Cal.5th 669). The judge must find a reasonable probability that harassment will continue or recur.
Facts that support a finding of future harm: recent incidents, escalation, violations of the temporary order, statements of intent, and circumstances that keep the parties in contact, such as living next door. Facts that cut against it: a long gap since the last incident, a move or job change, the end of the dispute that caused the conduct, and compliance. In E.G. v. M.L. (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 688, the court limited an order to the period in which recurrence was likely, because the conflict was tied to a custody dispute that would end.
Common situations, sorted
The same conduct can qualify or not depending on the details. These are general patterns, not predictions for any case.
| Situation | Usually qualifies when… | Usually does not when… |
| Neighbor dispute | There are threats, confrontations at the door, filming into windows, vandalism, or following | The dispute is about noise, parking, trees, fences, or property lines with no targeting of the person |
| Repeated texts, calls, or emails | Contact continues in volume after a clear request to stop and has no purpose but to distress | The messages concern a real shared matter (rent, a debt, a child, a claim), or there were only a few |
| Social media posts | Posts threaten, reveal private information to invite harm, impersonate, or are sent at the person repeatedly | Posts are opinion, criticism, or reviews about the person, however harsh, especially on public matters |
| Showing up | The person appears repeatedly at home or work with no reason to be there, or waits and follows | The parties share a workplace, building, gym, or school and encounters are incidental |
| Former friend or acquaintance | Persistent unwanted contact, gifts, or surveillance after being told to stop | One or two attempts to reconcile or to return property |
| Workplace conflict | A coworker threatens, follows, or targets the person outside ordinary work interaction | The conduct is supervision, discipline, or ordinary workplace conflict |
| Landlord and tenant | Entry without notice used to intimidate, threats, utility shutoffs, confrontations | Lawful notices, inspections, rent demands, or an eviction case |
| Complaints to an employer, school, or agency | Many false reports made to damage the person | A good-faith report to the proper authority, which is generally protected petitioning |
| Litigation between the parties | Conduct outside the case that targets the person | Filing suit, serving papers, and communications about the case |
| One heated argument | It included a credible threat of violence or a battery | It was an exchange of insults with no threat |
Evidence: what clear and convincing proof looks like
Harassment must be proved by clear and convincing evidence, proof that makes it highly probable the facts are true. The judge “shall receive any testimony that is relevant,” which means hearsay may be considered (Duronslet v. Kamps (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 717), but the weight given to uncorroborated accounts under this burden is limited.
Evidence that tends to carry the burden:
- Complete message threads showing both sides, with dates.
- Call logs showing volume and timing.
- Video and photographs with timestamps.
- Witnesses with no stake in the outcome.
- Police reports and prior written demands to stop.
- A dated timeline tying each exhibit to each incident.
Evidence that tends to fall short:
- The petitioner’s testimony alone, contradicted by the respondent.
- Cropped or undated screenshots.
- Descriptions of what other people said the respondent did.
- General claims of feeling harassed, without specific incidents.
If you have been served: testing the petition
A respondent should read the petition against the statute, element by element. The questions below are where civil harassment petitions most often fail.
- Which type of harassment is alleged? If there is no violence and no threat of violence, the petitioner needs a course of conduct with all five requirements.
- How many acts are described, and are they dated? One incident is not a pattern.
- Was there a legitimate purpose? Collecting a debt, using shared property, co-managing a business, reporting a concern, pursuing a legal claim.
- Is any of it protected activity? Posts on public matters, complaints to agencies, and litigation conduct come out of the count.
- What is the evidence of substantial emotional distress? Annoyance is not enough.
- Is it likely to happen again? If circumstances have changed, say so and prove it.
- Is there corroboration? If the case is one person’s word, the clear and convincing burden favors the respondent.
- Is this the right statute? If you and the petitioner dated, lived together as partners, share a child, or are close relatives, § 527.6 does not apply.
Then use the tools the statute gives a respondent. File a written response on Form CH-120. Take the one continuance you are entitled to if you need time to prepare (CCP § 527.6(o)). Request attorney’s fees; a respondent who wins may recover them (Krug v. Maschmeier (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 796). Obey the temporary order completely in the meantime, because a violation is a crime and is evidence that harassment will continue. Our respondent’s guide covers the first 72 hours, and the hearing guide explains what happens in court.
If you are being harassed: building a petition that meets the definition
A petitioner should write the declaration to the elements.
- State which type of harassment occurred, and if it is a course of conduct, list each act with its date.
- Explain why the conduct had no legitimate purpose. If you asked the person to stop, say when and how.
- Describe the distress specifically: what changed in your sleep, work, routines, and sense of safety.
- Explain why it will continue: recent acts, escalation, proximity.
- Attach the proof. Under this burden, an uncorroborated declaration is a weak petition.
- Do not respond in kind. Mutual hostility undermines the claim and invites a cross-petition.
If the other person is a former partner, co-parent, or close relative, a domestic violence restraining order is the correct request, and its burden of proof is lower. Our petitioner’s guide covers filing.
How the Restraining Order Law Firm handles civil harassment cases
The firm’s practice is limited to restraining orders, and civil harassment hearings are a large part of it. For respondents, the firm’s results include petitions denied after trial at the Palm Springs, Corona, and Long Beach courthouses and in Orange County Superior Court, including a case in which a temporary order had already been issued; two related petitions dismissed through trial at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse; and dismissals at the Central Justice Center, in Moreno Valley after multiple hearings, and in Whittier. For petitioners, the firm obtained the renewal of a civil harassment order in Los Angeles County. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
The firm appears in every courthouse in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, and Ventura Counties, from offices at 835 Wilshire Blvd., Floor 5, Los Angeles 90017 and 695 Town Center Dr., #1200, Costa Mesa 92626. See our main guide to civil harassment restraining orders and our comparison of the types of restraining orders.
Frequently asked questions
What legally counts as harassment in California?
For a civil harassment restraining order, harassment means 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 them and serves no legitimate purpose. The course of conduct must be one that would cause a reasonable person substantial emotional distress and must actually cause the petitioner substantial emotional distress. The definition is in Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6(b)(3).
Can a single incident be harassment in California?
A single act of unlawful violence or a single credible threat of violence can be harassment, but the judge must still find that harm is likely to recur before issuing an order. A single non-violent incident cannot be a “course of conduct,” which requires a series of acts showing a continuity of purpose. One argument, one insulting message, or one confrontation is generally not enough.
Do text messages and social media posts count as harassment?
They can. Repeated texts, calls, emails, or direct messages sent to a person after they have asked for contact to stop, with no legitimate purpose, are a classic course of conduct. Posts that threaten or are aimed at tormenting a specific person can also qualify. Opinion, criticism, and commentary about a person, especially on matters of public interest, are generally protected speech and do not count.
Is a dispute with a neighbor harassment?
Not by itself. California courts have reversed civil harassment orders based on ordinary neighbor conflict such as noise from basketball and parking on a shared driveway, because that conduct has a legitimate purpose or does not cause substantial emotional distress. A neighbor dispute becomes harassment when it turns into threats, following, filming into a home, vandalism, or repeated confrontations aimed at the person.
What is a “credible threat of violence”?
It is a knowing and willful statement or course of conduct that would place a reasonable person in fear for their safety or the safety of their immediate family, and that serves no legitimate purpose. The threat can be made through conduct as well as words, and the petitioner does not have to prove the respondent intended to carry it out.
What proof do I need for a civil harassment restraining order?
Clear and convincing evidence, meaning proof that makes it highly probable the harassment occurred. In practice this means dated incidents supported by complete message threads, call logs, video, photographs, police reports, or neutral witnesses, plus testimony about the distress the conduct caused. The petitioner’s word alone, contradicted by the respondent, often does not meet this standard.
What can I do if someone falsely accuses me of harassment?
File a written response on Form CH-120, obey any temporary order, and prepare to show at the hearing which elements are missing: no pattern, a legitimate purpose, protected activity, no substantial distress, or no likelihood of recurrence. You are entitled to one continuance, and if you prevail the court may order the petitioner to pay your attorney’s fees under section 527.6(s).
Consult With a Restraining Order Lawyer Today
Whether conduct is “harassment” under section 527.6 is a legal question with five elements, a high burden of proof, and about three weeks to prepare. If you have been served with a civil harassment petition, or are being harassed and need an order, call (888) 808-2179 or request a confidential consultation with the Restraining Order Law Firm. We will go through the facts element by element and tell you where the case stands. If the situation is urgent, our 24/7 emergency help line is available now.
The Restraining Order Law Firm is a d/b/a of Barhoma Law, P.C. This page is attorney advertising and general information about California law, not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statutes, forms, and deadlines change — verify all references with counsel before relying on them. If you are in immediate danger, call 911.