Issuance of a PPO; MCL 600.2950; Kampf v. Kampf; Whether the issue of a PPO can be deemed "moot" because the PPO is expired; Hayford v. Hayford; "Stalking"; MCL 600.2950(1)(i); MCL 750.411h; Prohibition against any act or conduct that imposes upon or interferes with personal liberty or that causes a "reasonable apprehension" of violence; MCL 600.2950(1)(j)

The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it granted a PPO against the respondent, or when it denied his motion to terminate the PPO. On appeal, the court rejected respondent's argument that the factual allegations were insufficient to support the issuance of the PPO. "The evidence of respondent's repeated attempts to contact petitioner against her wishes, his threats that petitioner would have to meet him 'face to face' if she did not respond to his calls, in addition to respondent's intimidating conduct" during an incident at a restaurant where he chased her, tried to grab her arm, and lunged at her, causing her to call security and then run from respondent when she left the restaurant, "satisfy the definition of 'stalking' under MCL 750.411(h)(1)(d)." Further, it said this behavior was also evidence that he engaged in conduct prohibited by MCL 600.2950(1)(j), which bars "[a]ny other specific act or conduct that imposes upon or interferes with personal liberty or that causes a reasonable apprehension of violence." The court also rejected respondent's argument that the comments he made about petitioner in the restaurant during the incident were constitutionally protected speech and could not be used as a basis for a PPO. "Because the May 28th incident involved much more than 'speech' and because he engaged in conduct as well as stalking behavior, his argument is without merit." Affirmed.