By a MetNews Staff Writer
The Court of Appeal for this district yesterday affirmed an order requiring that a woman infatuated with actor Channing Tatum—and concealed herself in his home for 10 days—stay at least 100 years from him or members of his family, rejecting her contention that the order is so broad as to preclude her from earning her livelihood.
Justice Carl H. Moor of Div. Five wrote the unpublished opinion which affirms a five-year civil harassment restraining order issued last year by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Helen Zukin. It is imposed on model/circus performer Chantal Cusson, who, in addition to having secretly resided in the Tatum home last year while it was being renovated, came to the home, in a gated community, on three other occasions, one remaining for five hours, refusing to leave.
“Here, there is nothing to suggest the trial court abused its discretion in issuing the civil harassment order on the basis of Cusson’s pattern of unwanted contact and trespass,” Moor wrote. “Orders like the one at issue are routinely affirmed.”
He went on to say:
“On appeal, Cusson requests this case be remanded for modification of the restraining order in some unspecified way, because she contends that, since the time it was entered, the order has adversely impacted her ability to work, resulting in her becoming homeless. We note that Cusson does not offer a plausible connection between the restraining order and her inability to pursue career opportunities.
“We can only infer that Cusson believes her career is disadvantaged because she is no longer able to hold out Respondent as a patron of her work, or that she cannot perform as an artist and entertainer if there is a possibility that Respondent might attend one of her performances. The record before us does not support these speculative claims.”
Nor Proper Mechanism
“Moreover, an appeal is not the proper mechanism by which to seek to modify the terms of a restraining order. Rather, it is within the discretion of the trial court to modify its order in connection with a motion or stipulation of the parties on the basis of (1) a change in the facts, (2) a change in the law, (3) the ends of justice, or (4) other grounds on a case-by-case evaluation consistent with the reasons for granting restraining orders and the statute’s purposes.”
The case is Tatum v. Cusson, B300543.
Blair Berk of the Sunset Strip law firm of Tarlow & Berk represented Tatum. Cusson was in pro per.
Copyright 2020, Metropolitan News Company