Scott v. Blum
| Decision Date | 29 April 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 2D15–3412.,2D15–3412. |
| Parties | Randy A. SCOTT, Appellant, v. Frederic A. BLUM, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Randy A. SCOTT, Appellant,
v.
Frederic A. BLUM, Appellee.
No. 2D15–3412.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
April 29, 2016.
Randy A. Scott, pro se.
Jeremy J. Kroll of Bogenschutz, Dutko & Kroll, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for Appellee.
BLACK, Judge.
Randy Scott challenges the order enjoining him from cyberstalking. He contends that the petitioner below, Frederic A. Blum, failed to provide evidence of the statutory elements required for entry of an injunction against cyberstalking. Mr. Scott also contends that the order is overly broad and impedes his First Amendment right to free speech. We agree that Mr. Blum failed to meet his evidentiary burden and reverse. As a result, we do not reach the First Amendment issue.
Mr. Blum filed a petition for injunction for protection against cyberstalking. Mr. Blum is a process server and a member of the National Association of Professional Process Servers (NAPPS). Mr. Scott is a former process server and former member of NAPPS. At the hearing on the petition, Mr. Blum testified that Mr. Scott sent emails about Mr. Blum and Mr. Blum's family, partners, and former employees to 2200 NAPPS members. The emails consisted of links to articles, blog posts, or videos. In some instances, the articles or blog posts were written by Mr. Scott. The tenor of the emails, articles, blog posts, and videos was derogatory, and the allegations within them were potentially damaging to Mr. Blum's business and reputation. Copies of the emails supported Mr. Blum's testimony.
Mr. Blum testified that none of the emails were sent directly to him but that he knows about them because they were forwarded by the recipients to him or he received phone calls about them. The emails, articles, blog posts, and videos did not contain threats against Mr. Blum. However, Mr. Blum claimed that the content of the emails, articles, blog posts, and videos caused him emotional distress; he had trouble sleeping and eating, the emails were constantly on his mind, and he constantly had to defend himself to people.
Mr. Scott testified that his emails discussed many people within NAPPS or connected to NAPPS and were not directed at Mr. Blum.
The trial court granted the injunction without findings or conclusions. The order is a form order with no conditions specific to the facts of this case.1
Section 784.0485(1), Florida Statutes (2014), provides that “[f]or the purposes of injunctions for protection against stalking under this section, the offense of stalking shall include the offense of cyberstalking.” Section 784.048(1)(d) defines cyberstalking as “engag[ing] in a course of conduct to communicate, or to cause to be communicated, words, images, or language by or through the use of electronic mail or electronic communication, directed at a specific person, causing substantial emotional distress to that person and serving no legitimate purpose.” Harassment is “a course of conduct directed at a specific person which causes substantial emotional distress ... and serves no legitimate purpose.” § 784.048(1)(a). Thus, cyberstalking is harassment via electronic communications. See Murphy v. Reynolds, 55 So.3d 716, 717 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). In order to succeed in a petition for injunction against cyberstalking, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bell v. Battaglia
...deemed to be "cyberstalking." This was error because the text message was sent to a third party, not Battaglia. See Scott v. Blum , 191 So. 3d 502, 504 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) ("Mr. Scott did not communicate words, images, or language via email or electronic communication directly to Mr. Blum.")......
-
Bell v. Battaglia
...Although Battaglia was the subject of the text message that Bell admitted sending to his wife, he was not the recipient. See Scott, 191 So.3d at 504-05 (concluding that emails sent to third parties did constitute words 'directed at a specific person' for purposes of the cyberstalking statut......
-
Logue v. Book
...to leave the door open to applying the stalking statute in those types of cases. In fact, in a subsequent case, Scott v. Blum , 191 So. 3d 502, 503 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016), the Second District found that emails sent to 2,200 members of an organization did not constitute words "directed at a spec......
-
Craft v. Fuller
...and serves no legitimate purpose." § 784.048(1)(a). Thus, cyberstalking is harassment via electronic communications. Scott v. Blum, 191 So. 3d 502, 504 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (alterations in original) (emphasis added).3 Hence, to be entitled to the injunction, Fuller was required to prove that ......