Williams v. Superior Court
Annotate this Case
Williams hired Fautt to build a home in Pleasanton. The relationship broke down, resulting in highly contentious e-mail and phone communications. Williams sent her communications from either her Pleasanton home (Alameda County) or her husband’s Modesto office (Stanislaus County). Fautt filed a civil harassment action in Contra Costa County and obtained an ex parte temporary restraining order (TRO) against Williams. Williams moved to change venue to Alameda County and to “void” the TRO.
The civil harassment statute does not contain any venue provisions; Williams maintained the general venue statute, Code of Civil Procedure 395(a) governed. Fautt argued that under section 395(a) an action “for injury to person or personal property . . . from wrongful act or negligence” may be brought in either the county where the injury occurs or the county where the defendant resides and he alleged substantial and serious emotional distress, and physical injury. Fautt also cited the Judicial Council Form “Request for Civil Harassment Restraining Orders,” which asks “Why are you filing in this county?” One optional answer is: I was harassed by the person ... in this county. The trial court denied Williams’s motion based on the Judicial Council form. The court of appeal vacated. Fautt’s harassment claim is not one “for injury to person” as that terminology is used in the general venue statute. The Judicial Council does not provide a basis for venue in the county where the harassment allegedly occurred.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.