anes wn 10] rv 12 13] 14] 15) 16) 17) 18) 19) 20 a 2 23 4 25 26 27 28 axrengd tee rr (COUNTY OF NEVA MAR 08 022 4 EXECUTIVE By: S. SKOVERSKI, Deputy Clerk IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF NEVADA COUNTY OF NEVADA, CASE NO. CU22-086191 (Consolidated with CU22-86192, (CU22-86193) Petitioner, AMENDED ORDER ON SUBMITTED MATTER ‘TEINE REBANE JACQUELYN MA’ CHIP MATTOON, Respondents. Petitioner’s three Petitions for Workplace Violence Restraining Orders came on for trial on March 1, 2022, and March 2, 2022, in Dept. 6, before Pro Tem Judge Angela L. Bradrick. Petitioner County was represented by attorneys Trevor Koski and Katharine Elliot. Respondents were represented by attorney Barry Pruett. Afler trial concluded, the matter was taken under submission. The Court now rules as follows: Standard of Review Any employer, whose employee has suffered unlawful violence or a credible threat of violence from any individual, which can reasonably be construed to be carried out or to have been carried out at the workplace, may seek a TRO and an order after hearing on behalf of the employee and, at the discretion of the court, on behalf of any number of other employees at th workplace and, if appropriate, other employees at other workplaces of the employer. CCP §527.8(a).we win Bee swe 2 13] 4 15! 16: 17) 18) 19) 20 2 2 23 24 25 26 27 28 A TRO or order after hearing prohibiting workplace violence may only be issued against natural persons, and not against groups, associations, or corporate entities. City of Los Angeles v. Animal Defense League (2006) 135 Cal.App.4" 606, 622-625. Unlawful violence is any assault or battery, or stalking under Penal Code §646.9. A credible threat of violence is a knowing and willful statement or course of conduct that would place a reasonable person in fear for his or her safety, or the safety of his or her immediate family, and that serves no legitimate purpose. CCP §527.8(b)(2). The intent requirement for a true threat is that the respondent intentionally or knowingly communicates the threat; itis not necessary that the respondent intends to, or is able to carry out the threat. Huntingdon Life Sciences, Inc. v. Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty USA, Inc. (2005) 129 Cal. App." 1228, 1255-1256. Course of conduct is a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. CCP §527.8(b)(1).. If the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent engaged in unlawful violence or made a credible threat of violence, the court must issue an order prohibiting further unlawful violence or threats of violence. CCP §527.8(j). The petitioner ‘must also establish that great or irreparable harm would result to the employee if an order is not issued because of the reasonable probability that unlawful violence will occur in the future. Seripps Health v, Marin (1999) 72 Cal. App! 324, 332. Factual Background During the week commencing January 15, 2022, a “Jericho Walk” took place by members of the public. Each day at approximately 1:00 pm, the public would gather to pray and then walk one time around the County building called the Rood Center. On the seventh day, the participants would pray and then walk seven times around the County building. A ram's horn would be blown during these prayer walks. All three Respondents participated in this Jericho Walk at various times throughout the week. At trial, Petitioner County referenced the Battle of Jericho described in the Book of Joshua in the Holy Bible, whereby Israel conquered Canaan, priests blew their ram’s homs 2ane win 10] ut R 13 14] 16] 17 18| 19 20) 2 22 23] 24 25) 26 27 28 after marching seven times around the walls of the city of Canaan, the walls of the city fell, and Joshua cursed anybody who rebuilt the foundations and gates with the deaths of their children, Petitioner County attempted to demonstrate that the Jericho Walk participants may have sought for the walls of the County building to fall or that the employees be cursed. However, such attempt failed to demonstrate any violent thoughts or actions by the Jericho Walk participants, including the Respondents, as the undisputed evidence shows the participants in the Jericho Walk were non-violent and peaceably assembled in a demonstration protected by their First Amendment rights. Moreover, the Jericho Walk participants did not enter the County building during their prayer vigil and never had contact with the County employees at issue. Thus, this Court will focus its attention solely on the three days in which the Respondents entered the County building and approached the election office, which is on the second floor of the building On January 19, 2022, Respondent Kenney attended the prayer walk where she bumped into a friend, Shannon Bryars. While there, Ms. Bryars showed Respondent Kenney two videos which took place on previous occasions; one in the elections office and one in the hallway of the County building. The Court has viewed these videos. In one video (Exhibit 508), Natalie Adona, the Assistant Clerk-Recorder, is seen yelling at members of the public who entered the election office without masks, as a mask mandate in response to COVID-19 was in place at that time. Ms, Adona was visibly angry and frustrated and the Court found her behavior very concerning, as her behavior appeared to escalate the situation and was only marginally rational. Ultimately, however, Ms. Adona assisted the unknown individuals in the office so that they would leave. In the second video (Exhibit 507), « conversation between an unknown individual and an unidentified Nevada County Deputy Sheriff is taking place. The discussion between the two individuals focused on the requirement of wearing masks in the County building. ‘The Deputy stated he was not enforcing the mask mandate and that the unknown individual was “preaching to the choir.” This Court could not determine if the Deputy made this statement to defuse the argument or because he actually agreed with thesubject. However, itis clear to the Court that a viewer of this video, including Respondent Kenney, would believe the mask mandate was not being enforced in the County building. Later that day, at approximately 4:00 pm on January 19, 2022, approximately six individuals, including all three Respondents, returned to the election office. ‘The purpose of this visit was to determine the status of Petitions to Recall the Board of Supervisors, of which Respondents Chip and Jacquelyn Mattoon were signatories. Exhibit 509 is a partial video of this visit. In the second floor hallway outside the election office, Respondent Kenney is seen speaking to a security guard, The security guard appears to be referencing the mask mandate and says to Respondent Kenney, “hold on a second, ma'am.” Respondent Kenney then replies, “I have business in here,” and proceeds to enter the election office. The Court is able to hear the security guard state to other unseen individuals, “I can’t let you in without a mask.” Nonetheless, other individuals enter the office. The Court is unable to determine from the video if Respondents Chip and Jacquelyn Mattoon entered the office or remained in the hallway. The election office employees did provide service to the individuals who entered the office without a mask. The next day, January 20, 2022, only the three Respondents retumed to the election office for the purpose of checking the status of the Recall Petitions. The election office door was locked. However, a bell was placed next to the door which stated, “Ring Bell.” Three videos of the events that followed were provided to the Court. As shown in Exhibit 510, the video shows that, as the three Respondents approached the election door, Respondent Kenney reached for the door handle and found it locked. It also appears that Respondent Jacquelyn Mattoon attempted the door handle. In the Exhibit 511 video, one of the Mattoon Respondents, tings the bell. An employee, later identified as County employee Suzanne Hardin, opened the election door approximately six inches, She clearly stated, “you guys need masks to come in.” Respondent Kenney responded, “I'm gonna come in right now.” Ms. Hardin then said, “you are not going to come in.” A scuffle at the door then ensued, Respondent Kenney’s foot appeared to keep the door from closing. Additionally, although her hands were not used, it appears Respondent Kenney’s shoulder was placed against the door to also prevent it from 4wera an 10) uw 2 1B 14 15 16) 17 18 19) 20 2 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 closing. But, at the same time, Ms. Hardin was trying to close the door and appeared to use some force, as she grunted while doing so. Respondent Kenney was getting squeezed into the door frame. A bit more dialogue occurred and Ms. Hardin ultimately stepped back and allowed the door to open a bit more. She stated, “are you seriously going to do this?” Respondent Kenney then slipped through the slightly larger opening and went into the election office. It is clear that the door was not opened for her, because she had to walk through the opening sideways. The next video, Exhibit 512, was another view of the same incident at the door. Ms, Hardin, who was holding the door approximately half-way open and had her body situated in the opening, stated to the Mattoon Respondents, “you are terrifying me.” A security guard was standing directly behind her but did not participate in this event in any way. Respondent Chip Mattoon stated that Ms. Hardin assaulted Respondent Kenney by shutting the door on her. But, Ms. Hardin stated, “you were assaulting me.” Ms. Hardin opened the door further, but stood in the doorway, and the Mattoon Respondents were stil in the hallway. Ms. Hardin said, “we ask you not to come in without your masks and you continued to come in without your masks. That's terrifying.” Respondent Jacquelyn Mattoon responded, “well, it’s not meant to be.” Ms. Hardin then began to calmly shut the door while the Mattoon Respondents were still in the hallway. Respondent Jacquelyn Mattoon then reached out, stopped the door from closing further, opened it more herself, and then walked through. It does not appear Respondent Chip Mattoon ever touched the door, but he did follow Respondent Jacquelyn Mattoon through the doorway. Ms. Hardin, again stated in ar voiee, “you need to stay outside.” After the Mattoons entered, Ms. Hardin stated, “I apologize. | do not need your [mumble].” Ms. Hardin then walked down a hallway away from the Respondents to leave the scene. This doorway scene is the focus of this case. The County contends that the Respondents forced their way into a locked office without permission. Respondent Kenney contends that she was assaulted by Ms, Hardin as she tried to enter through the doorway that was initially open sufficient enough for her to fit through, and that she had a right to enter because she had business with the public office. After this incident, Respondent Kenney testified that she gave a statement to Deputy Sheriffs in the front 5ee aan eon 10 MW 12) 13) 14) 15) 16) 17 18] 19| 20 2 2 4 25) 21] 28 of the County building, she was asked if she wanted to press charges against Ms. Hardin based ‘on her statement, and she was handed a vietim’s rights pamphlet by the Deputy. Respondent Kenney testified that the Deputy’s actions and statements support her position that she was a vietim: On January 21, 2022, shortly after the prayer vigil, the three Respondents, along with approximately 6-7 other individuals, went up to the elections office again. Both the County and the Respondents provided a video of this day. In the video, some individuals can be seen carrying flags. The elections office door was locked again and a sign was posted which stated “closed for in-person services.” The leader of the group appeared incredulous, and stated something to the effect of, “no notice was given of any closure.” The leader knocked on the elections door but no one came out, ‘The group meandered down the hall and found all offices locked and one individual lightly knocked on a few of the doors, One male employee did open an office door, allowed the group in, took down questions the group had, and the group applauded him. Another employee casually answered questions as she leaned against a wall in the hallway. At no time was the group of individuals in the hall loud. There was no pounding, or yelling. In fact, at one point, an individual in the group could be heard stating, “Shhh. Shhhh.” The group appeared to try not to be disruptive, although they were disappointed that “their” county building was closed for services. The group peacefully dispersed on their own accord after approximately 40 minutes. The video shows that the assembly of persons was a peaceful demonstration and did not disrupt services. Nonetheless, during this 40 minute period, employees of the election office testified they felt terrified and trapped, and were afraid of the group in the hall, Respondent Kenney ‘There are two incidents which involved Respondent Kenney which is concerning to this Court. First, on January 19, 2022, Ms. Kenney was asked by a security guard to “hold on.” Respondent Kenney replied, “I have business in here,” and proceeded to enter the election office although she was asked not to. This act is clearly defiant, but is not violent,ee a awe wn 10) rT 12) 13| 14] 15] 16| 17] 18 19) 20 1 2 23 24 25) 26 27 28) The second incident is the more concerning one. On January 20, 2022, itis clear that Respondent Kenney used her body to prevent Ms. Hardin from closing the office door. She was repeatedly asked to not enter the office, but she forcefully made her way through. ‘This “terrified” Ms. Hardin. ‘The two events demonstrate a course of conduct with a continuity of purpose. Moreover, the incidents, taken together, show a course of conduct that would place a reasonable person in fear for his or her safety. Respondent Kenney first entered a room after being asked not to come in, then the very next day forcefully pushed a door open, which had been locked and after she had been told she could not enter. This would cause any reasonable employee on the other side of that door to be fearful. Moreover, this Court finds that great harm would result to the employee if an order is not issued because of the reasonable probability that unlawful violence will occur in the future. Respondent Kenney has testified that she is now a Recall Proponent and so she has reason to visit the election office during this next election cycle, in addition to any other personal business reasons she might have at the Clerk-Recorder’s Office. In addition, she has shown that she will return to the office, in that she returned again on January 21, 2022. The Court also notes that, although Respondent Kenney had a legitimate purpose in being in the building (ie. to determine the status of the recall petitions), the forceful method of shoving her way into the office had not legitimate purpose. Thus, this Court finds by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent Kenney engaged in unlawful violence or made a credible threat of violence and the Court further finds that great harm would result to the employee if an order is not issued because of the reasonable probability that unlawful violence will occur in the future. Thus, the Court grants the Coumty’s request for an order prohibiting further unlawful violence or threats of violence as against Respondent Kenney. Mattoon Responde; ‘On January 19 and 21, 2022, there is no conduct by either of the Mattoons which show violence or a credible threat of violence. While they did enter the elections office after being 7Sie ea am ew uw 12 13 14) 15) 16 17 18 19 20 a 2 23 25 26 27 28 told a mask was required and they were not wearing one, the entering appeared to be a peaceful gesture of defiance without accompanying defiant words or gestures. Respondent Chip Mattoon’s only behavior of concer on January 20, 2022, is the following of his wife into the election office after she stopped the door from closing and she further opened the door. His presence was not violent nor a credible threat of violence, although it was defiant of the mask mandate and disruptive to the office. ‘There is also no course of conduct that would support a Workplace Violence Restraining Order. Thus, the County's request for an order prohibiting further unlawful violence or threats of violence as against Respondent Chip Mattoon is denied. The temporary restraining order issued against Chip Mattoon on February 1, 2022, is hereby dissolved Respondent Jacquelyn Mattoon’s only behavior of concern on January 20, 2022, is the stopping of the door as Ms. Hardin was closing in it in front of her, and then Respondent opening it up sufficiently to allow her to enter the office. However, her actions demonstrate only defiance, not violence nor a credible threat of violence. Again, like Respondent Chip Mattoon, her conduct was disruptive to the office, but there is no course of conduct that would support a Workplace Violence Restraining Order. Thus, the County’s request for an order prohibiting further untawful violence or threats of violence as against Respondent Jacquelyn Mattoon is denied. The temporary restraining order issued against Jacquelyn Mattoon on February 1, 2022, is hereby dissolved. DATED: 4-4-2 ANGELA {\BRADRICK PRO TE! GE