Filed 3/10/20 Myers, Widders, Gibson, Jones & Feingold v. Bass CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

MYERS, WIDDERS, GIBSON, JONES & FEINGOLD, LLP,

Petitioner and Respondent,

v.

LAWRENCE WAYNE BASS,

Appellant.

2d Civ. No. B297904

(Super. Ct. No. 56-2019-00526384-CU-PT-VTA)

(Ventura County)

THE COURT:*

Steven P. Lee, a partner in the law firm of Myers, Widders, Gibson, Jones & Feingold, LLP (the Firm), represented Lawrence Wayne Bass in an employment dispute. Bass received a post-mediation settlement check and was upset that the $5,000 mediator’s fee had been deducted from the full amount. He had an angry confrontation with two staff members and then sent several vitriolic communications to the Firm. Bass threatened to sue Lee for malpractice and to seek his disbarment. In a letter to Kelton Lee Gibson, the Firm’s managing partner, Bass said he “hope[d] that you and yours are soon subjected to evil, sick, highly disturbing acts, the likes of which your dirty Steven Lee allowed and/or propagated, and that they include federal crimes + pure evil,” and stressed that “[y]ou have had chance after chance – we will now merely accelerate your inevitable extinction.”

The Firm terminated its representation of Bass and filed a petition for a restraining order under the Workplace Violence Safety Act. (Code Civ. Proc., § 527.8.) The trial court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) and, following an evidentiary hearing, granted the petition. The court’s order, as modified, protects Lee and prohibits Bass from entering the Firm’s workplace.

The focus of Bass’s appeal is on the loss of his Second Amendment right to bear arms. He contends substantial evidence does not support the trial court’s finding that he made a credible threat of violence against Lee. (See § 527.8, subd. (a).) Bass himself states in his opening brief that if the restraining order is not lifted, “we can fully expect more criminal conduct from Lee and his associates and ultimately I will indeed be forced to arm and fight if need be.” Similar statements in the trial court’s record support its order. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The employment dispute with Bass’s former employer settled for $50,000. When Bass went to the Firm to pick up the settlement check in December 2018, he was greeted by Veronica Villarreal and her co-worker, “Evelyn.” After they gave him the check, Bass became upset and started to curse. He demanded to know why $5,000 had been deducted from the settlement amount. Evelyn tried to explain, but he kept on cursing. He said, “Fuck this place. You guys are bitches.” On his way out, Bass swung at the Christmas tree, which almost toppled over. He continued to yell and curse as he walked through the parking lot.

On December 19, 2018, Bass sent an e-mail to Lee complaining about the deduction from the mediation settlement check and other matters. Bass wrote, “Please provide the funds owed or face a shit-storm of our OPINIONS and legal action. [¶] Shame on you! [¶] Go home and tell your kids how bad you fuck-up people’s lives and make them suffer, knowing full well they need medical attention.”

Lee’s reply informed Bass that he was no longer a client of the Firm. Lee instructed Bass not to come to any of the Firm’s offices and stated that if he “continue[s] with [his] harassing and disturbing behavior, [the Firm] will have no choice but to call the police and apply for a restraining order.”

On February 28, 2019, Bass sent an eight-page typed letter to five of Lee’s partners. He made numerous complaints about Lee and promised he would make Lee’s misdeeds known to “every judge in LA County,” to members of the “Me-Too Movement,” and to “more than a dozen famous or well-known Hollywood or Sports personalities.” Bass also threatened Lee with an “obvious legal Malpractice [action]” and “a filing with the State Bar, hopefully resulting in his swift Disbarment.”

Gibson sent a letter to Bass requesting “an explanation of what you want.” On March 25, 2019, Bass sent a five-page typed response, addressed to “Kelton Lee Gibson – Partner of COMPLETELY DISHONORABLE MYERS, WIDDERS, GIBSON, jones, Feingold – Law Firm of known CRIMINALS, LIARS, DEFAMERS & CHEATS.” The letter contained verbatim portions of Bass’s previous correspondence plus the “inevitable extinction” language quoted above. It also stated: “[W]e have been contacted again by your Steven Lee, the criminal and we are asking you this just one final time: PLEASE DO NOT HAVE THAT FILTHY, CHEATING BASTARD CONTACT ME, ANY OF MY AGENTS, FAMILY OR FRIENDS, IN ANY MANNER, EVER! The next act will bring VERY SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES!”

Bass demanded a refund of the $5,000 mediator’s fee and continued his diatribe about a conspiracy among his former employer, defense counsel and Lee. Bass said he wanted “both your Steven Lee, as well as [others] and their evil and sick Steven-Lee-supported criminal clients, their family and friends, to all be subjected to the exact same sick and evil crimes as we were, very soon and continuous!” (All caps. omitted.) Bass concluded by stating: “So Kelton my questionable ‘Man’ – There are 19 questions posed herein TO YOU PAL – PLEASE ANSWER EACH ONE – THAT’S WHAT WE WANT; NOW INSIST – ANY CONFUSION? (#20) [¶] GET A GRIP GUYS – YOU HAVEN’T MUCH TIME LEFT! [¶] THE HONORABLE LAWRENCE W. BASS.”

The Firm reported these communications to the Ventura Police Department, which recommended seeking a restraining order. On March 25, 2018, the Firm filed a petition for a workplace violence restraining order on behalf of Lee and 19 of his co-workers. The trial court issued a TRO and scheduled an evidentiary hearing.

Walter Johnson, a private investigator, personally served Bass with the petition and TRO. Bass told Johnson that the Firm’s attorneys “are fucking criminals and this is a federal criminal case.” As Johnson started to drive away, Bass “motioned to [him] with his hand in the shape of a gun.”

In his response to the petition, Bass claimed he never threatened Lee or anyone else with bodily harm, that any threats were limited to public exposure and legal consequences, and that a “dirty judge” in San Diego had issued, and later dissolved, a similar TRO against him. He argued it would be a federal crime “to prevent or restrict [his] 2nd Amend[ment] freedom as a result of the lies by a dirty, lying, attorney without cause or evidence of any wrongdoing.” He stated: “I was violently attacked . . . last night and have enacted a TRO against the attacker – anyone who allows this action against me is like Lee providing a cold slap in the face to all those abused, all victims of abuse and violence, as well as all of our servicemen and women, those lost, and all their families as well. I will not be prevented from defending myself, now or ever, especially after receiving attacks and additional threats.” (All caps. and emphasis omitted.)

Villarreal, Johnson, Lee and Bass testified at the evidentiary hearing. Bass represented himself. Lee explained the negative effect Bass’s comments and behavior have had on him, his family and the Firm’s employees. After considering the testimonial and documentary evidence, the trial court issued a three-year restraining order protecting Lee and 19 co-workers. The court explained: “What has come across loud and clear is the obvious frustration and anger of Mr. Bass with regard to the outcome of the litigation that Mr. Lee was representing him in. The issue . . . before me is whether or not a reasonable person would believe that the statements made by Mr. Bass were a threat. On this subject, I must agree with Mr. Lee and disagree with Mr. Bass.” The court also noted the Firm’s partners “have an obligation to protect their employees and they have a right to seek the orders which they have sought.”

The trial court advised Bass that “he cannot own, possess, have, buy or try to buy, receive or try to receive or in any other way get guns, other firearms or ammunition.” Bass stated he does not own or possess any guns or firearms but plans “to get one because [he] was just violently attacked.”

The trial court subsequently granted Bass’s request to modify the restraining order to delete Lee’s 19 co-workers as protected persons. The augmented record includes the modified order, but it does not contain Bass’s request, any opposition or a reporter’s transcript of the hearing. Bass appeals.

DISCUSSION

The Workplace Violence Safety Act

Section 527.6 authorizes a “person” who has suffered harassment to obtain an injunction to prevent further harassment. Section 527.8, subdivision (a) provides the same right to an employer: “Any employer, whose employee has suffered unlawful violence or a credible threat of violence from any individual, that can reasonably be construed to be carried out or to have been carried out at the workplace, may seek a temporary restraining order and an order after hearing on behalf of the employee and, at the discretion of the court, any number of other employees at the workplace, and, if appropriate, other employees at other workplaces of the employer.” “[I]njunctive proceedings under section 527.8 are intended to parallel those under section 527.6, which are procedurally truncated, expedited, and intended to provide quick relief to victims of civil harassment.” (Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Wilson (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 550, 557; Scripps Health v. Marin (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 324, 333 (Scripps); USS-Posco Industries v. Edwards (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 436, 443 [Section 527.8 “address[es] the growing phenomenon in California of workplace violence by providing employers with injunctive relief so as to prevent such” acts].)

To obtain a workplace violence restraining order, an employer must prove its employee has suffered unlawful violence or a credible threat of violence from an individual in the workplace. (§ 527.8, subds. (a), (e).) The employer “must establish by clear and convincing evidence not only that [the individual] engaged in unlawful violence or made credible threats of violence, but also that great or irreparable harm would result to an employee if a prohibitory injunction were not issued due to the reasonable probability unlawful violence will occur in the future.” (Scripps, supra, 72 Cal.App.4th at p. 335; see § 527.8, subd. (f); City of San Jose v. Garbett (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 526, 537-538 (Garbett).) “[T]he requirement of establishing the reasonable probability wrongful acts, or simply unlawful violence, will occur in the future guarantees that injunctive relief will be issued to prevent future harm instead of punishing past completed acts.” (Scripps, at p. 335, fn. 9.)

Standard of Review

“[W]e review an injunction issued under section 527.8 to determine whether the necessary factual findings are supported by substantial evidence. [Citation.] Accordingly, we resolve all factual conflicts and questions of credibility in favor of the prevailing party, and draw all reasonable inferences in support of the trial court’s findings.” (Garbett, supra, 190 Cal.App.4th at p. 538.)

Substantial Evidence Supports the Trial Court’s

Finding of a Credible Threat of Violence

Bass, who is again self-represented, contends the trial court committed reversible error by issuing the workplace violence restraining order. Focusing on the “credible threat of violence” requirement (§ 527.8, subd. (a)), Bass argues he never made any such threats. The record is to the contrary. Bass’s persistent name-calling, vitriolic statements, weapons references, hyperbole and other bullying conduct not only constitute substantial evidence of a credible threat of violence, but they also confirm the prudence of the court’s decision.

When asked to identify evidence of a credible threat of violence, Lee referred to the following statements in Bass’s February 28, 2018 letter: “Should Lee be made to suffer without medical care, his family, perhaps, also?”; and “[i]f a part of my life will be taken due to what your Lee needlessly put us through for well over a year, he is going to pay dearly.” Lee interpreted that letter and the December 19, 2018 e-mail “as criminal threats.” In Lee’s view, Bass’s statement that he was “going to accelerate your inevitable extinction” was a threat to his life and to that of his employees. Bass claimed it was not a death threat, but rather a reference to “the inevitable extinction of dirty, lying attorneys who get away with what they’ve gotten away with a long time in California, like you.”

During Bass’s examination of Lee, the trial court admonished him for failing to give Lee time to respond to his questions. Bass complained that Lee was laughing at him “because he’s a dirty attorney who thinks he can get away with it.” The court responded: “[T]hat may be your belief. But once you ask him a question, you need to let him answer it.” Lee then remarked, “I’m trying. You, quite frankly, terrify me. I don’t even know what the question is.”

Lee admitted he was aware that the district attorney’s office had filed a criminal complaint against Bass in 2000 for making terrorist threats to GTE’s chief executive officer. Lee replied “[n]o” when asked if he “just blindly restrict[s] and den[ies] the constitutional freedoms of anyone who stands up against [him] and [his] dirty firm.”

On cross-examination, Lee said he had made certain changes in his life since receiving Bass’s December 19, 2018 e-mail. He explained: “I’m afraid to go outside my house. I’m afraid to have my kids home alone. I’m afraid that my current girlfriend is going to be impacted by this man because he references wives, girlfriends, and other females he wants to hurt and be subjected to the alleged sexual harassment and sexual assault that took place against a woman that . . . he knows. I’m afraid to do the things I want to do on the weekend. I’m afraid to go to the beach because that’s where he hangs out.”

Lee stated the Firm must keep its doors locked to protect the female employees who sit by them. Those employees now have panic buttons under their desks and access to baseball bats. He testified that his employees are “terrified of this man” and that the “whole office has been turned upside down” by him. Lee said he “can’t live like this anymore. It’s wearing.”

This evidence is compounded by statements in Bass’s filings in this court. His briefs repeat the vitriol of his communications with Lee and the Firm and his rage at losing his Second Amendment rights. He argues that “[s]winging a door open and supposedly making a Christmas Tree shake . . . is not a cause to deny 1st and 2nd amendment rights.” Bass concedes he is angry “at being ripped off for at least $260,000 by the conspiracy involving Lee,” but says he is even “more angry at having [his] rights wrongfully denied.” He “sincerely hope[s] . . . Lee remains terrified for the remainder of his life. [Lee] is the cause of all of this, he chose to lie and perjure and committed very serious crimes and he is going to be made to pay, consistent with the U.S. Constitution.”

Bass also threatens to ignore the restraining order and to “exercise all of [his] constitutional guarantees” if he believes Lee is committing more “highly criminal acts.” (All caps. omitted.) In seeking a continuance of the original oral argument date in this appeal, Bass notified this court by e-mail that he would be leaving the country to “undergo weapons re-training” and asked us to tell him what crimes he has “the right to commit against these obvious criminals, for the crimes they have already committed against [him].” (All caps. omitted.)

Under these circumstances, Lee’s concern regarding the tenable possibility of bodily harm to him, his family and co-workers is justified. Section 527.8 “requires only a statement made knowingly and willfully, which would place a reasonable person in fear for his or her safety.” (Garbett, supra, 190 Cal.App.4th at p. 539.) It does not require “that the defendant intend to cause the person to believe that he or she had been threatened with death or serious injury.” (Id. at pp. 538-539 [rejecting defendant’s argument that the city employees’ fear was irrelevant because he did not intend to threaten them through his self-described “bombastic” and “attention-grabbing speech”].)

Bass’s repeated ad hominem attacks against Lee and others, his shooting gesture at Johnson and his fixation on acquiring weapons notwithstanding the injunction would “place [any] reasonable person in fear for his or her safety.” (Garbett, supra, 190 Cal.App.4th at p. 539.) We conclude the evidence amply supports the trial court’s finding of a credible threat of violence. (See § 527.8, subd. (a).)

DISPOSITION

The restraining order, as modified, is affirmed. The Firm shall recover its costs on appeal.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

 

William Q. Liebmann, Judge

Superior Court County of Ventura

______________________________

Lawrence Wayne Bass, in pro per, for Appellant.

Myers, Widders, Gibson, Jones & Feingold, LLP, Dennis Neil Jones and Eric R. Reed, for Petitioner and Respondent.