Page 1
Court of Appeal:
Shouting Profanities at Neighbor Walking Dog Justified Civil Harassment Restraining Order
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Div. One of the First District Court of Appeal yesterday affirmed a civil harassment restraining order. Code of Civil Procedure §527.6, against a man who shouted threats and profanities at his next-door neighbor who was walking his dog.
The man, Tony Meneghetti, commanded the neighbor, James Smith, to get the dog off his lawn. The dog was apparently on a patch of grass on the sidewalk which, according to testimony, is public property.
Meneghetti shouted, among other things:
“I’m going to kick your dog and punch you in the face if you don’t get off.”
Smith’s wife, Michela Pucko, came out of her house to inquire what was going on and Meneghetti allegedly threatened to hit her and kick the dog if the dog were to urinate on the lawn again.
The incident was videotaped.
Judge’s Observation
San Francisco Superior Court Judge Murlene Randle observed:
“[C]learly, the video speaks for itself. He was aggressive. He was yelling….Whatever it was, was startling to me.”
In yesterday’s unpublished opinion, Contra Costa Superior Court Judge John Devine, sitting on assignment, said:
“[W]e reached our determination about the legal appropriateness of the trial court’s order concerning Tony by only the narrowest of margins, but ultimately arrived at our decision by the strict application of the deferential legal standards that guide this appeal.”
The restraining order was also applied to Tony Meneghetti’s wife, Shelli Meneghetti. Devine said that substantial evidence did not support that order.
No Further Misconduct
Although there had been discord in the past—including Shelli Meneghetti coming on the neighbor’s property, insisting they had a package intended for her—there had been no bellicose conduct on her part since a lawyer sent two cease-and-desist letters in July 2020, Devine said, declaring:
“Even if Shelli’s conduct prior to July 2020 could have been characterized as harassment under section 527.6, there is no evidence in the record that this conduct was likely to persist.”
Devine referred to the parties by their first names and initials although they had litigated using their full names. He said in a footnote:
“We refer to the parties and witnesses by their first names to protect their privacy. (California Rules of Court, rule 8.90(b)(5)).”
Wording of Guideline
The rule he cited, which is set forth as a guideline, provides:
“To protect personal privacy interests, in all opinions, the reviewing court should consider referring to the following people by first name and last initial or, if the first name is unusual or other circumstances would defeat the objective of anonymity, by initials only:
….
“(5) Protected persons in civil harassment proceedings under Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6.”
The Meneghettis are not “protected persons.”
The case is James S. v. Tony M., A163465.
Copyright 2022, Metropolitan News Company