Scripps Health v. Marin
72 Cal.App.4th 324, 85 Cal. Rptr. 2d 86, 1999 D.A.R. 4833 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To obtain a permanent injunction prohibiting workplace violence under California Code of Civil Procedure § 527.8, a plaintiff must prove by clear and convincing evidence not only that the defendant committed a past act of unlawful violence but also that there is a reasonable probability of future harm sufficient to show that great or irreparable harm will result without the injunction.
Facts:
- Mel M. Marin's mother, Eva Marinkovic, was a patient at a Scripps Health hospital.
- Marin and his father objected to the hospital's plan to discharge his mother, and Marin filed a complaint with the Medical Review Board.
- On May 22, 1997, Marin and his father went to the hospital to meet with Scripps employees Marge Owens and Nancy Quesnell in a small, empty patient room to discuss the situation.
- When Quesnell refused to allow Marin to record the meeting, Marin stated he would handle the matter in writing and attempted to leave the room.
- Owens then closed the door and positioned herself between Marin and the exit, stating that they needed to discuss his mother.
- Marin stated there was nothing to talk about, pulled the door open to leave, and in doing so, the door struck Owens, pushing her into a wall.
- Marin, visibly angered, immediately left the hospital premises with his father.
- In the two months following the incident, while no restraining order was in effect, Marin made no further threats and caused no violence, even when his mother was briefly readmitted to a Scripps facility.
Procedural Posture:
- Scripps Health petitioned the trial court for an injunction to prohibit Mel M. Marin from harassing its employees under California Code of Civil Procedure § 527.8.
- The trial court initially granted Scripps Health an ex parte temporary restraining order (TRO).
- Four days later, the trial court vacated the TRO pending a full evidentiary hearing, conditioned on Marin's agreement to stay away from Scripps facilities.
- After the evidentiary hearing, the trial court found that Marin had committed an act of unlawful violence and granted a three-year permanent injunction against him.
- Marin (appellant) appealed the trial court's order granting the permanent injunction to the Court of Appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a single past act of unlawful violence, without any evidence of a threat of future harm, justify the issuance of a permanent injunction under California Code of Civil Procedure § 527.8?
Opinions:
Majority - Work, J.
No, a single past act of unlawful violence, without evidence of a threat of future harm, does not justify a permanent injunction under § 527.8. The statute, like all prohibitory injunctions, is intended to prevent future harm, not to punish past acts. To obtain such an injunction, a plaintiff must establish a reasonable probability that the wrongful acts will be repeated. The court reasoned that the purpose of injunctive relief is to prevent threatened injury, and it has no application to wrongs that have already been completed. Despite the statute's language stating an injunction 'shall issue' upon a finding of past violence, the court interpreted this in the context of the entire statutory scheme and the traditional purpose of injunctions. It concluded the Legislature did not intend to eliminate the fundamental requirement of showing a threat of future harm. Here, the record contained no evidence that Marin was likely to commit future acts of violence; the incident was isolated, and the circumstances that precipitated it (his mother's care) had changed, making recurrence unlikely.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that California's statutory scheme for workplace violence injunctions (§ 527.8) does not create a new, lower standard for permanent injunctive relief. It harmonizes the statute with the traditional equitable principle that injunctions are forward-looking remedies designed to prevent future harm, not punish past conduct. The ruling prevents the statute from being used punitively for isolated incidents and reinforces that employers must prove a continuing threat. This ensures that a defendant's liberty is not restrained for years based on a single act without evidence that such an act is likely to recur.
