Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Christopher Carr Lay and Curt Newnes formerly had a personal and professional relationship that included consulting, financial analysis, and a co-investment partnership. James Seleno, a retired police officer, worked as a private investigator for Newnes. Lay testified that Newnes became increasingly erratic after losing a major client and becoming involved in litigation, and began believing that friends, family members, and colleagues were conspiring to destroy his company.
Lay described a March 2022 office meeting at which Newnes accused him of participating in the conspiracy, displayed a board containing photographs and connections, and made graphic threats. Newnes denied threatening Lay or having knives at the meeting, while Seleno disputed portions of Lay's account. Lay did not seek a restraining order then. He later attempted to de-escalate matters, but testified that Newnes threatened him again during a December 2024 video call.
In January 2025, Seleno repeatedly texted Lay about a proposed investigation despite Lay's requests for no further contact, and Lay's attorney sent a cease-communication letter. The following month, Lay was working alone in his office around 8:00 p.m. when he saw Seleno, dressed all in black and holding his phone while filming. Lay encountered him once before entering a restroom and again when he emerged. Seleno said he went wherever Newnes paid him to go, knew where Lay lived, what car he drove, and where his office was, and could find Lay at any time. Lay unsuccessfully tried to call 911, obtained an escort to his vehicle, and later contacted police. He then sought a civil harassment restraining order.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division Three, affirmed the judgment and awarded Lay his costs on appeal. The trial court had treated the March 2022 incident as too old to justify an order independently, admitting limited testimony about it to establish Lay's state of mind. It nevertheless found a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at Lay that served no legitimate purpose, determined Seleno was acting as Newnes' agent, and issued a three-year order against both men.
The appellate court rejected the argument that the February 2025 visit was only one brief incident under Leydon v. Alexander. It identified two separate encounters: Seleno's initial statement that he was looking for Lay despite knowing Lay wanted no contact, and his decision to remain outside the restroom and initiate another conversation rather than use an exit that would avoid Lay. The court treated as forfeited the contentions that one visit could not be divided into separate conversations and that a longer interval was required because both were unsupported by case law.
The court also held that a facially legitimate reason for entering the building did not legitimate Seleno's two unwanted confrontations. Unlike the reasonable backyard basketball activity in Schild v. Rubin, Seleno's statements and conduct could cause a reasonable person substantial emotional distress. Lay's testimony about fear, checking for the men near his home, and planning with his wife supplied substantial evidence of actual distress without expert testimony. Finally, the court concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the March 2022 meeting evidence and that there was no prejudicial error or miscarriage of justice. The court also found no abuse of discretion in restricting cross-examination, noting it would consider Lay's return to Newnes' office and allowed questioning about alleged December 2022 threats.
Key Takeaways
- A single visit can involve separate acts supporting a course of conduct when the encounters are distinct rather than one continuous, isolated incident.
- A lawful or potentially legitimate reason for being present does not necessarily supply a legitimate purpose for confronting someone who has repeatedly requested no contact.
- Expert medical or psychological testimony is not invariably required to prove substantial emotional distress under Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6.
- Older threatening conduct may be relevant to a petitioner's later state of mind even when it is too remote to justify a restraining order by itself.
- Trial courts retain discretion to focus cross-examination on relevant issues, and evidentiary error requires an affirmative showing of prejudice.
Why It Matters
The decision applies the statutory harassment definition to the cumulative context of unwanted contact rather than evaluating each brief interaction in isolation. It distinguishes permission to enter a building from a legitimate purpose for repeated confrontations and emphasizes appellate deference to credibility findings and resolutions of conflicting testimony.
The opinion also clarifies the limited role of the earlier threats in this case: they explained Lay's fear in 2025 but were not themselves the basis for the order. Its evidentiary analysis separately addresses relevance, prejudice, and control of cross-examination, while leaving intact the trial court's three-year restraining order.