Young v. Putallaz CA2/2

Filed 11/4/26 Young v. Putallaz CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO JESSIE YOUNG, B330359, B333010 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. v. Nos. 22CHRO01104, 22CHRO01792) HEIDI PUTALLAZ, Defendant and Appellant. DANIEL DELDO, B330361, B333008 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. v. Nos. 22CHRO01147, 22CHRO01158) HEIDI PUTALLAZ, Defendant and Appellant.  APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Karen Moskowitz, Judge. Affirmed. Law Office of Gary Kurtz and Gary Kurtz for Defendant and Appellant. Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker and Gary S. Pancer for Plaintiffs and Respondents. ****** Heidi Putallaz (appellant) appeals from orders issuing civil harassment restraining orders (CHRO’s) against her in favor of her former physical therapists, respondents Jesse Young and Daniel Deldo (collectively respondents), and subsequent awards of attorney fees in favor of each respondent. Because substantial evidence supports the issuance of the restraining orders, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in making the attorney fee awards, we affirm the trial court’s orders. BACKGROUND I. The requests for restraining orders Young was employed, at all times relevant, as the clinical director of Vargo Physical Therapy’s (Vargo PT) San Fernando office. Deldo worked during the relevant time at the same office as a licensed physical therapy assistant. Appellant was a patient at Vargo PT’s San Fernando office and received care directly from Young and Deldo. While appellant received treatment on approximately 124 occasions between December 2019 and March 2021, she “developed a fondness” for Young and Deldo. She objected to any other therapist providing her services, and offered gifts including food, DVD’s, flash drives of movies, birthday cake, and Christmas gifts for staff and Young’s children. In January 2021 appellant expressed a desire to be transferred to the Valencia office, where Deldo had recently 2 transferred. Appellant asserted that the environment had changed, and she was no longer happy with her care at the San Fernando office. However, Young suspected appellant was infatuated with Deldo and recalled appellant asking him if Deldo had any romantic interest in her. By February 2021, Young and Deldo began observing appellant engaging in inappropriate behavior such as following them and lurking in their home neighborhoods. Due to appellant’s inappropriate behavior, Young informed appellant Vargo PT was no longer interested in providing her treatment and encouraged her to access care from an alternate provider. Appellant resisted but ultimately came to an agreement that Vargo PT would provide five final sessions to allow appellant time to transition to a new provider. Around this time, multiple offices of Vargo PT began receiving phone calls from appellant, complaining and threatening to file a complaint with the Physical Therapy Board of California (PT Board). On June 20, 2022, Young filed a request for CHRO seeking protection from appellant. He also sought protection for his wife and three young children, then ages eight, seven, and four. Young asserted he had observed appellant stalking him and monitoring his personal life on approximately a dozen occasions, causing him emotional distress and fear for the safety of himself and his family. Young attached a detailed declaration setting forth many instances when he observed appellant stalking him, between February 2021 and June 2022. On June 23, 2022, Deldo too filed a request for CHRO seeking protection from appellant. In an attached declaration, Deldo described numerous incidents of being stalked by appellant beginning in April 2021 and continuing through June 2022. 3 Deldo described emotional distress and fear for his safety due to these incidents. At the time respondents filed their requests, appellant was engaged in disparagement of respondents, Vargo PT, and its employees. Both management and other employees spent significant time with her, providing reasonable responses and accommodations to her requests. Appellant filed a complaint with the Department of Consumer Affairs and the PT Board. After the PT Board’s rejection of her claims, appellant’s stalking behavior worsened. II. Denial of requests for temporary restraining orders Respondents’ requests for temporary restraining orders (TRO) were denied. The court noted the acts listed were insufficient to show acts of violence, threats of violence, or a course of conduct causing serious emotional harm and did not show irreparable harm would result without a TRO. The court set evidentiary hearings in both matters for July 13, 2022. III. Requests for continuances On July 7, 2022, Young filed a request to continue the hearing to allow additional time to serve appellant with the CHRO request and to allow consolidation of the two cases, as well as a separate CHRO filed by appellant against Deldo.1 On February 21, 2023, appellant sought to continue the hearing because she needed additional time to receive a response to a subpoena to the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department for purported video evidence pertinent to one of her defenses. 1 Appellant’s CHRO requests against respondents are not at issue in this appeal. 4 Appellant asserted without this evidence she would suffer prejudice. Young opposed appellant’s request, noting the court ordered the parties to exchange all evidence by February 14, 2023. Per appellant’s motion, the subpoenaed evidence was not to be produced until after that deadline, and appellant’s request failed to explain why the purported video evidence was not subpoenaed earlier. Young argued a lack of diligence was not an excuse to further delay the proceeding. The trial court denied appellant’s request for continuance. Prior to the hearing, respondents filed declarations in support of their respective CHRO’s against appellant. They also submitted declarations of Erik Wolpert (Wolpert), who at the time of the incidents described in his declaration that he was the clinic director of Vargo PT’s Valencia office and the regional director overseeing Vargo PT’s San Fernando office; Robert Grieder, president of Vargo PT; Debbie Wolpert, a licensed physical therapist employed at Vargo PT since 2002; and Justin Yamauchi, the general manager of Drifters Bar & Pizzeria in Valencia, California. IV. Testimony The court heard five days of testimony from both witnesses and parties. Respondents’ counsel noted at the start of testimony that appellant refused to stipulate to a stay-away order pending the hearing. A. Jesse Young Young was a licensed physical therapist in good standing for over 11 years at the time of the hearing. He was the director of Vargo PT’s San Fernando office and a primary treating therapist there. Young became acquainted with appellant as a 5 patient when she began receiving treatment at Vargo PT’s San Fernando office in 2019. At the time Young reported to Wolpert, who was then the regional director. Appellant attended physical therapy for a lengthy period of time, from December 2019 through March 2021. Overall, she attended approximately 124 visits. This was on the higher end for a patient’s total number of visits. Deldo also provided treatment to appellant as Young’ physical therapy assistant. Young had a good relationship with appellant for the first three-fourths of the time he worked with her. Appellant would provide gifts of food treats, DVD’s, and small tokens of appreciation. She posted positive reviews of Vargo PT on social media. There was a gradual change after Deldo was transferred to the office in Valencia. Appellant then became difficult to manage as a patient. She complained about the way she was being treated, saying the atmosphere had changed, and she was not as pleased with the services. The relationship was further strained when appellant began expressing interest in transferring to the Valencia office. Young testified, “I tried to advise her against that because she made it clear to me that she was trying to go be there to be with [Deldo]. She asked me, at one point, if [Deldo] was interested in her, romantically, which I had told her was not the case.” Appellant continued to insist on being transferred to the Valencia office and ultimately was granted permission to do so. The day before she was scheduled to transfer to the Valencia office, appellant arrived at Vargo PT in San Fernando “to grab some records.” On his way home, Young noticed appellant was following him. Young tried unsuccessfully to lose her in a parking lot. Young later noticed appellant was parked in 6 her car with the lights off near his home. Young, being suspicious, maneuvered his car to try to question her. Appellant sped away with her lights off, ultimately running a red light to avoid him. It seemed to Young appellant was stalking him. Young felt afraid for his wife and three young children, who were then seven, five, and three. The next morning at work, Young telephoned appellant and informed her he was not comfortable with what she was doing. He also told her he wanted to have nothing further to do with her physical therapy treatment. Young told her he found her behavior “extremely alarming.” Appellant told Young she had been at that location to meet a seller on Facebook Marketplace. Young did not believe appellant’s story. Appellant showed Young a text message with no time stamp and the alleged seller had spelled the name of the neighborhood incorrectly. Young thus terminated his relationship with appellant to the best of his ability at that time. Young later apologized to appellant for speaking in an elevated tone to her that day. In the following weeks, appellant made phone calls to Wolpert, Young’s regional director, stating Young had spoken to her in an inappropriate manner. In addition, appellant made several false damaging allegations against Young, including allegations of sexual misconduct and inappropriate touching occurring in the San Fernando office. Following the allegations, Wolpert, Young, and appellant met up at the Valencia office to hear appellant’s complaints and try to resolve the issues. Appellant retracted her allegations of misconduct, saying Wolpert must have misinterpreted her comments. Wolpert and Young asked how they could end 7 appellant’s relationship with Vargo PT peacefully. Appellant indicated she had five authorized visits left. She asked to finish those visits in the San Fernando office with Young. Despite his reluctance to work with appellant, it seemed like the best course of action to Young. Appellant did then return to finish the last five visits in San Fernando. She also dropped off an “exoneration letter of her own freewill” stating Young never did anything sexually inappropriate. The following month, Deldo told Young he was seeing appellant frequently in his neighborhood. She “all of a sudden” began hiking at a park half a block from Deldo’s residence. Deldo would see appellant’s car parked there nightly when he got home from work. Deldo was upset and wanted the behavior to stop. Young understood there had been interaction between Deldo and appellant in May 2021. Deldo asked appellant why she was doing this and what her purpose was. Following the incident between Deldo and appellant, appellant began repeatedly contacting Young on both his cell phone and office line saying Deldo had accosted and was harassing her. Appellant requested a conversation with Young and the owner of Vargo PT, Jeff Vargo. Young testified, “Not only did she contact me and blow up my office with multiple phone calls, but she was calling any Vargo office that she could … find a phone number to, trying to talk to any director to set up a meeting with Jeff Vargo stating that [Deldo] was harassing her in the community.” Young participated in two meetings with appellant, Grieder, and Wolpert, during which appellant claimed Deldo would not leave her alone, and that Vargo PT had disparaged her by suggesting appellant was stalking Young and Deldo. 8 Appellant threatened to go to the PT Board if they could not come to a resolution. Ultimately, appellant demanded to be allowed to return to Vargo PT or she would file a complaint with the PT Board. At that point, Grieder found they had exhausted all options and did not see it in the organization’s best interest to continue to treat appellant. Appellant was told she could not return to Vargo PT as a patient. Following that meeting, appellant began to “bombard” Young’s social media with various complaints and allegations against the San Fernando office and Vargo PT. She also filed a complaint with the PT Board. In September 2021, Young received notification that an investigation had commenced. Deldo, Young, Grieder and Wolpert would all be interviewed, as well as a physical therapist, Amanda Corona, a woman who was present in the office during most of appellant’s treatment. Young sat with the investigator for approximately 90 minutes answering questions about appellant’s accusations. In May 2022, the PT Board informed Young it had concluded there had been no wrongdoing and the investigation was closed. Almost immediately following the PT Board’s decision to close the investigation, Deldo again began seeing appellant in his neighborhood. The following week, Young had three sightings of appellant in his neighborhood. One of the incidents took place at Young’s daughter’s school. Young had gone to the school to see his daughter perform in a play, and upon leaving the parking lot observed appellant’s car driving towards him on a dead-end street adjacent to the school. Young recognized appellant’s car and her license plate and was able to observe her in the car. 9 Young immediately reported the incident to the president of Vargo PT.2 Young estimated he had seen appellant around his home about “14 or 15 times.” He had begun to search his car for tracking devices and worried she was tracking his phone. He feared she was going to harm him in some way. After Young had discussions with his employer about what to do, he contacted the sheriff’s department. He was informed there was nothing they could do unless a restraining order was in place. Young then filed for a CHRO against appellant. Appellant filed one against Young premised on false accusations that Young had threatened to kill her. Young continued to see appellant in his neighborhood and along the route he drives between home and work. He testified, “she seems like she is putting herself there intentionally so we have to drive together. [M]y latest fear is that she is trying to put herself in the proximity to use this TRO against me.” Young recalled being in the courtroom when the court invited all parties to this action to sign an agreement to stay away from each other. Young was eager to sign and was shocked that appellant was not interested. B. Daniel Deldo Deldo is a licensed physical therapy assistant who started working at Vargo PT in 2000. He treated appellant at the San Fernando office until June 2020 when he transferred to the 2 Appellant denied being near Young’s daughter’s school on June 7, 2022. Rather, she claimed to be at a police station at 2:16 p.m., at Starbucks at 2:49 p.m., and checking out from Sam’s Club at 3:16 p.m. 10 Valencia location. Appellant had expressed a preference for either Young or Deldo to treat her, as opposed to a female therapist. Appellant also requested Deldo treat her outside the clinic setting. Deldo declined. Young informed Deldo that appellant had asked Young if he had any idea whether Deldo would be romantically interested in appellant. Young knew Deldo had no interest. Deldo observed appellant stalking him in his neighborhood dozens of times. He testified appellant had “insert[ed] herself in [his] bubble,” where he lives, on his direct path home, and across the street from his house. The stalking and harassment had continued. It affected both his work and his family. A few weeks after Young reported the initial sighting of appellant in his neighborhood, appellant called Deldo’s cell phone to say she was not following Young. Deldo had never given appellant his phone number, so he asked her how she got it.3 Deldo informed appellant this was not something he would deal with, and she should call Wolpert. In February 2021, Deldo was aware appellant was having conversations with Young, Greider and Wolpert. He started noticing what he believed were coincidences around his home, such as seeing appellant in his neighborhood. On one occasion, Deldo pulled up next to her and asked appellant to roll down her window. He asked her why she was following him, stating it was 3 Appellant testified that one night after they had been drinking, Deldo approached her and gave her a business card with his phone number written on the back. Appellant alleged Deldo said, “you know, COVID is kind of crazy. You live alone. If you ever need anything, … here is my number.” Deldo denied this incident occurred. 11 inappropriate, especially given what was going on with Young and the meetings with management. Appellant started to respond, but Deldo turned around and went to the store he intended to visit. Appellant followed him in her car and said, “I am not following you.” Deldo responded, “I don’t want to deal with this,” and walked into the store. Deldo then communicated to Wolpert what he believed to be a pattern and informed Wolpert he had confronted appellant. Deldo continued to see appellant in his neighborhood multiple times a week. He would both see her walking in his neighborhood and in her car parked down the street. The sightings were becoming more frequent. One evening when appellant was walking on Deldo’s street, he pulled over and called to her. Deldo was very frustrated and told appellant what she was doing was inappropriate. Appellant said she frequented a trail near Deldo’s home. Deldo, who had been in the neighborhood his whole life, had never seen appellant until the “frequent sightings of late.” Deldo threatened to report appellant to the police if she did not stop. Shortly thereafter, appellant submitted her complaint to the PT Board. Deldo later received a letter from the PT Board stating there was no wrongdoing and the board was taking no action. After he received notice from the board, he again began seeing appellant near his home. During the week after the PT Board’s decision, Deldo saw appellant three times near his home: at a shopping center, a Ralph’s grocery store, and the trail head near his home. Around the same time, Young told Deldo he had seen appellant near his child’s school. In June 2021, Deldo spoke with a friend who worked in law enforcement about the situation, and the friend recommended he seek a restraining order. 12  C. Appellant Appellant, a postproducer for television, initially went to Vargo PT after a car accident. Though originally referred to the Valencia location who were “pretty booked,” it was suggested she try the San Fernando location. Appellant testified he lived in Santa Clarita for about a dozen years and frequently played tennis in the park near Deldo’s home. She also enjoyed the trail near the park. Appellant admitted to seeing Deldo in the parking area for the tennis court. While a patient at Vargo PT, appellant exchanged friendly e-mails and texts with Young. She denied ever expressing any romantic interest in Deldo, who, while working with her, would sit on a stool very close to her and speak to her in a whisper so no one else could hear. Appellant claimed he would confide in her about his family and his personal life. Appellant testified she was active in her church, Our Lady of Perpetual Help, the same church associated with Young’s child’s school. Appellant claimed to have been unaware Youngs’s child attended the school. After appellant returned to physical therapy following knee surgery, she felt the quality of care she was receiving at the San Fernando location had deteriorated and she wanted to transfer to another clinic. She admitted asking both Young and Deldo if they could do in-home physical therapy following her knee surgery. Deldo responded with a vague answer, but Young agreed to come to her home on a Saturday. He requested she not tell anyone because it went against his work contract. Appellant testified Young became upset when she asked him for a transfer 13 to a different clinic. Appellant informed Young if he could not transfer her, she would go to the PT Board. Appellant asked to be transferred to the Valencia clinic in September 2020. She testified the same month, Young threatened to kill her if she went to the PT Board. On her next visit, two days later, Young apologized and appellant decided to continue treating with Young. Despite her claim Young threatened to kill her, appellant continued to treat with him for about 30 more visits over the next six months. Regarding the incident of February 10, 2021, appellant testified she attempted to retrieve her records from the San Fernando office around closing time. When she left the parking lot she saw Young walking to his car. Once she left the parking lot, she went to meet a seller from Facebook Marketplace to purchase a television mount. She parked near what she believed to be the clubhouse of the Five Knolls neighborhood. The seller did not respond, so she decided to leave to visit a friend with a foster puppy. On May 12, 2021, she finished playing tennis and decided to go walking on the trails. She heard someone calling her and recognized Deldo, who she said began “going off” on her, “yelling and cursing.” Appellant said she was walking in the park and had looked at the sign to make sure she was within the boundaries of the city park. Shortly after the incident, she went home, grabbed her laptop and her foster cats, and booked a room at a Motel 6 because she was afraid to remain home. Appellant tried unsuccessfully to call Young that evening. She went to the Valencia clinic the next day and spoke with the assistant director, who told her to get in touch with Wolpert. 14  Since the May 12, 2021 incident, appellant testified she continues to use the trail and tennis courts near Deldo’s home but does not park on his street. On June 25, 2021, appellant had a phone call with Grieder, Young and Wolpert seeking help with Deldo’s harassment. Appellant did not think her concerns were addressed, so she filed a complaint with the PT Board. In April 2022, the PT Board called appellant to let her know they were dropping the case.4 Appellant sought a restraining order against Young because he threatened to shoot and kill her multiple times and to compromise her care at the Henry Mayo hospital. Appellant testified that in all, Young threatened to kill her on eight separate occasions. D. Adam Cook Cook is a television editor who had been a colleague of appellant. On March 21, 2021, Cook was on the phone with appellant going over some information for work, when appellant became alarmed, saying someone was trying to ram the back of her car. Cook recalled advising appellant to pull over and let the person pass. After a “little bit,” appellant pulled over. As Cook remained on the phone, appellant stated the car had pulled up alongside of her and the person in the car was trying to get her attention. Cook advised her to leave, but appellant was trapped behind some parked cars. She told Cook she was going to roll her window down and see what the person wanted. Cook then heard an aggressive male voice yelling and swearing at her, saying 4 Appellant said the PT Board explained to her their evidentiary standard is “higher than even a criminal court,” and the evidence she had given them could not legally be put before an administrative law judge. 15 things such as “Why are you trying to get us in trouble? And, why are you trying to mess us up?” The individual eventually said his name was “Danny.” Cook heard the individual say, “It’s a small town,” which Cook understood to be a threat, “kind of like ‘watch your back’ sort of thing.” Cook asked his girlfriend to get the phone number for the Santa Clarita police department “in case things turned ugly.” During the incident, Cook heard the individual refer to appellant as “cunt.” He said something along the lines of “she’s trying to ruin him.” The individual eventually left, but appellant was “freaked out” by the incident. Cook advised her to file a police report, but appellant said she did not want to “escalate the situation.” After the incident, appellant told Cook she was “going to call the physical therapy place or her main therapist and see if she could try to get some things sorted out.” On June 11, 2021, Cook was again on the phone with appellant regarding work issues. Appellant informed Cook she might have to “break the call” because she as expecting a call from her physical therapist. When Young called, Cook asked to be merged onto the call. Appellant was asking for her records, and Young stated he had heard nothing back yet. Appellant said it had been over a month, and asked Young what was going on. At some point in the conversation, appellant stated she had spoken to the PT Board, and the conversation then became “more hostile.” Cook said Young asked appellant, “Why are you putting the ‘puta’ in Putallaz? I told you not to do that.” Young then said appellant knew what would happen if she went to the board. He said, “If you keep this up, you’re going to meet my Winchester,” and mentioned that appellant would not be seen at Henry Mayo hospital. Cook made his presence known on the phone call, and 16 said, “You speak to all your patients this way?” At which point Young said, “Who the fuck is this?” Appellant mentioned she was on a work call and it got merged in, and Young said, “Tell him to shut the fuck up.” Appellant asked Young to help “resolve the situation with Danny,” and Young made a “quip,” stating, “Well, you’ll get the records when I’m done doctoring them.” Young then said he had patients and he had to go. E. Erik Wolpert On the date of the hearing, Wolpert was the director of clinical operations for Vargo PT, managing all the clinics. Wolpert first learned of the February 2021 incident from Vargo PT’s president, Grieder. Grieder told Wolpert appellant had appeared in Young’s neighborhood, and when Young confronted her, she sped off. On March 1, 2021, appellant called Wolpert at his office to discuss the incident with Young. Appellant said she “wanted to discuss it with [Wolpert] to clear her name rather than have to disparage the company with online reviews or report grievances to the insurance company or the state board.” Wolpert recalled receiving at least four phone calls from appellant that first week of March, concerning issues appellant had with either Young or Deldo. In the first phone call, appellant said she wanted to meet. During that conversation, Wolpert said he would be looking into it and discussing it with Grieder, who was on vacation at that time but was the primary decision maker. Appellant did not express any concern that Young had threatened to kill her. In fact, she wanted to meet with Wolpert, Grieder and Young. Wolpert worked with Grieder on an internal investigation into the concerns appellant brought to his attention. They found 17 no clinical or operational issues that warranted discipline. They discussed no further socializing after hours in the clinic unless it was confined to staff. Appellant informed Wolpert she wanted a transfer to the Valencia office. Wolpert had been informed by Young that appellant once asked him if she thought that Deldo had any romantic interest in her. Wolpert had worked with Deldo for 21 years and Young for 15 years. Over tens of thousands of customer interactions, he had never learned of a complaint brought by a patient against Deldo or Young, apart from those brought by appellant. In May 2021, Wolpert was informed by Grieder of the May 12, 2021 incident in which Deldo had discovered appellant in his neighborhood. Deldo told Wolpert he was upset about the incident and was tired of all the sightings of appellant in his neighborhood. Deldo expressed concern that he could not be in his neighborhood without fear of seeing her. Appellant arrived at the Valencia clinic on the day following the incident at 7:00 a.m. Wolpert was informed by the manager on duty by e-mail. Wolpert found it odd that appellant would go to the Valencia office where she knew Deldo worked if she was being harassed by him.5 5 When questioned about going to the Valencia office the morning after having what she described as a frightening encounter with Deldo, appellant said she called the Valencia office before going and was told Deldo was working at a different office that day. Wolpert testified there was no one present in the facility to answer phones prior to appellant’s arrival at the office at 7:00 a.m. 18  In June 2021, appellant told Wolpert in a phone call with Grieder and Young that she wanted to meet with Deldo and Vargo PT to “clear the air.” The meeting did not occur because Deldo wanted no interaction with appellant. Wolpert typically interacted with Young at least twice a week. There had not been a single interaction in the preceding six to nine months in which Young had not talked about seeing appellant in his neighborhood and how it caused him fear for the safety and well-being of his family, and pressure from not knowing when she would again appear. Wolpert also had some discussions with Deldo, who said he was a “wreck” because he felt so uneasy in his neighborhood. Wolpert suggested to both Young and Deldo that they obtain restraining orders. F. Robert Grieder Grieder is the president of Vargo PT and has been with the company for 18 years. Grieder first learned about appellant in February 2021, when Young informed him appellant had followed him home. Grieder later learned appellant was also following Deldo and had been seen in his neighborhood on multiple occasions. On May 12, 2021, Deldo called Grieder following an incident near his home during which Deldo had confronted appellant. Grieder suggested Deldo contact the police. Following the May 12 incident, Vargo PT offices received a “barrage” of phone calls from appellant wanting to speak with Young, Wolpert and Vargo. Deldo reported continuing to see appellant in his neighborhood and at a restaurant/bar that he frequented. Young had seen her in the parking lot of the clinic and had also received several calls from her. 19  After it became apparent that appellant would not stop calling the Vargo PT offices or stop harassing Young and Deldo, Grieder agreed to a conference call with appellant in June 2021. On the call, appellant stated that Deldo was bringing a gun to work, and police had told her Deldo had a police record. Appellant insisted Deldo was following her, not the other way around. She had contacted the PT Board. She complained Vargo PT was sending out e-mails disparaging her name to other physical therapy providers. Grieder had no knowledge of anyone disparaging appellant’s name. Since appellant claimed she did not get a chance to say everything she wanted to say, she asked for a second call with Grieder and Young on the phone. During that call, “[s]he just wanted to … throw all these allegations out.” She did not feel they were taking her allegations seriously. By the end of the second call, appellant asked if she could return to the San Fernando clinic to be treated, adding Young was the only person she could trust and wanted to be treated by him. Grieder informed appellant it was best if she sought treatment elsewhere. Grieder was made aware appellant brought complaints to her medical group, claiming fraudulent billing and that Vargo PT was preventing appellant from being treated at other providers. She also filed a grievance against Vargo PT with her health plan. The complaints were investigated and dismissed. Young was distraught and nervous following the incidents when appellant followed him home and the incident at his child’s school. Deldo, usually upbeat and jovial, after the incidents with appellant, had become distraught. 20 V. Trial court orders Following the testimony the trial court found “there was clear and convincing evidence based on my credibility assessments of all the witness testimony and consideration of all the evidence … of a course of unlawful harassment and that [appellant] engaged in a course of conduct that seriously alarmed, annoyed, and harassed [respondents] that serve[d] no legitimate purpose and that caused significant emotional distress.” The court imposed three-year restraining orders protecting Young and Deldo from appellant, which expired March 26, 2026.6 The orders included 100-yard stay-away orders from respondents’ homes and workplaces, but carved out an exception for appellant to attend services and sacraments at Our Lady of Perpetual Help Church. VI. Posttrial events A. Appellant’s motion for disqualification On July 12, 2023, appellant filed a motion to disqualify the trial court judge under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.1.7 In the motion, appellant accused the court of lacking impartiality, seeking the court’s disqualification under section 170.1, subdivision (a)(6)(A)(iii), which provides that a judge shall be disqualified if, for any reason, “[a] person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that the judge would be able to be impartial.” Appellant stated a reasonable person aware of the facts and circumstances would believe the trial judge had 6 In Young’s case, additional protected individuals were Young’s wife and children, and in Deldo’s case, Deldo’s father was named. 7 All further undesignated statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure. 21 shown the appearance of bias and prejudice and ignored the law. In a declaration filed in support of the motion, appellant listed the following purported instances of such bias: (1) the judge refused to wait for a subpoena to be complied with; (2) the judge engaged in inappropriate behavior with opposing counsel and parties, including “laughing, joking and bonding” with those individuals; (3) the judge lacked impartiality when it came to appellant’s attorney’s schedule; (4) the judge allowed unlimited hearsay for opposing parties but refused to grant the same to appellant; (5) the judge did not give equitable and adequate time to both sides; (6) the court let it be known before hearing from appellant’s side that it had already made up its mind; (7) the court did not allow impeachment evidence or audio/video evidence; (8) the judge was on her cell phone while appellant testified; (9) the court refused to allow some direct evidence, barred appellant’s side from making a closing argument, and refused rebuttal. On July 20, 2023, the trial court issued an order striking the statement of disqualification and a verified answer. The court stated, “Since the [declaration] is based on untimely allegations and demonstrates on its face no legal grounds for disqualification, it is stricken pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 170.4, subdivision (b).” The court noted a statement of disqualification “shall be presented at the earliest practicable opportunity after discovery of the facts constituting the ground for disqualification.” (§ 170.3, subd. (c)(1).) Appellant’s declaration named rulings and other incidents made during a hearing that took place March 1, 7, 10, and 13, 2023. Appellant waited over four months to seek disqualification for cause. Thus, the motion was not timely. The court explained that 22 disagreement with a court’s rulings and views on legal or factual issues do not provide grounds for disqualification. In addition, appellant’s opinions and conclusions are not grounds for disqualification. The court addressed appellant’s allegations that the judge was “laughing, joking and bonding” with respondents and their counsel when appellant and her counsel entered the room. The court did not recall the incident and denied engaging in any improper ex parte communications. The court also addressed appellant’s allegation that the judge was scrolling through text messages on her phone during the proceedings. The court stated, “The assigned judge does not bring her cell phone to the bench and denies using her cell phone during these proceedings.” The judge attested, “The undersigned is not prejudiced or biased against or in favor of any party to this proceeding or their counsel, has made all rulings based upon the facts and arguments officially presented, and has acted in furtherance of her judicial duties.” B. Respondents’ motions for attorney fees On May 12, 2023, respondents each filed separate motions for an award of attorney fees in the amount of $50,778 and costs of $2,275 as prevailing parties under section 527.6, subdivision (s) with a supporting declaration of Gary S. Pancer, counsel of record. The court held a hearing on respondents’ motions for attorney fees on August 28, 2023. Appellant’s counsel argued respondents’ motions did not meet their burden of proof, as “[t]hey’ve simply stated, I worked X number of hours, this is my rate, and I want $50,000. That is not sufficient.” Appellant argued she had no means of reviewing the time spent and 23 determining whether it was reasonable. Counsel admitted an itemized billing statement was not required but argued “it has to be some fo