Health Smart v. Lyons
Respondent and appellant Gregory Lyons (Mr. Lyons), a security guard, was terminated from his employment at petitioner and respondent Healthsmart Pacific, Inc., doing business as Pacific Hospital of Long Beach (Pacific). Mr. Lyons filed an action against Pacific asserting a number of claims concerning his employment and termination. Pacific successfully moved for summary judgment in Mr. Lyons’s employment action. Thereafter, based on conduct it viewed as threatening, Pacific sought restraining orders against Mr. Lyons to protect certain employees. Also based on perceived threatening conduct, Fink & Steinberg, Pacific’s attorneys, sought restraining orders against Mr. Lyons to protect its employees.[1] The trial court issued permanent workplace violence restraining orders against Mr. Lyons and in favor of Pacific and its attorneys. Mr. Lyons appeals.
Mr. Lyons contends that none of the restraining orders is supported by substantial evidence and each of the restraining orders was issued in error because his alleged threatening communications were made in the course of litigation and thus were privileged. Mr. Lyons also contends that a firearm restriction was not justified and was issued without due process and the trial court was without jurisdiction to enjoin his behavior with respect to persons not named in Pacific’s petition for a restraining order. If there is sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s findings, without regard to Mr. Lyons’s evidence or credibility questions, and the trial court does not abuse its discretion, we must affirm. We are also required to resolve all factual conflicts and questions of credibility in favor of the party that prevailed in the trial court and draw all reasonable inferences in support of the trial court’s findings. If there is sufficient evidence that supports the trial court’s findings, that there is evidence that might also be reconciled with contrary findings does not justify a reversal of the orders. Thus, based on the standard of review we are required by law to follow, our power being limited, we must affirm.
Comments on Health Smart v. Lyons