D.M. v. A.M. (2026)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

The defendant, A.M., appeals from the extension of a harassment prevention order issued pursuant to G. L. c. 258E in favor of the plaintiff, D.M., following a two-party hearing in the District Court.¹ A.M. argues on appeal that the judge failed to identify three acts of harassment as the basis of the order.² We affirm the order's extension.

To review a civil harassment prevention order, “we consider whether the judge could find, by a preponderance of the evidence, together with all permissible inferences, that the defendant committed acts that constituted one of the enumerated forms of harassment.” A.S.R. v. A.K.A., 92 Mass. App. Ct. 270, 274 (2017). As relevant here, “[h]arassment” is defined as “[three] or more acts of willful and malicious conduct aimed at a specific person committed with the intent to cause fear, intimidation, [or] abuse.” G. L. c. 258E, § 1 (subsection [i] of definition of “[h]arassment”). To qualify, the conduct must be intended to cause and actually cause fear of physical harm or damage to property. See C.E.R. v. P.C., 91 Mass. App. Ct. 124, 125-126 (2017). We review the judge's factual findings for clear error. See id. at 126.

Here, as the District Court judge properly found, there were three or more incidents constituting harassment. On June 27, 2025, the defendant called the Target store that D.M. managed, looking for D.M., and became vulgar with the employees when she was told that D.M. was not there. On June 28, 2025, the defendant showed up at the Target store and demanded to speak to D.M. The defendant then called Target's customer service line and made multiple threats, including that she would “go Luigi” and that she was “at the point of feeling like Luigi” and that D.M. was “gonna be sorry though.”³ On June 30, 2025, the defendant called Target again, looking for D.M., and stated, “this is why people go full Luigi.” On July 1, 2025, the defendant called again and stated that she would continue calling and coming to the store looking for D.M. The judge properly found that these events constituted three or more incidents of harassment under G. L. c. 258E.

The defendant's repeated calls and trips to the Target store and her references to Luigi Mangione reasonably support an inference that she intended to cause D.M. fear, intimidation, or abuse. See C.E.R., 91 Mass. App. Ct. at 125-126. Additionally, as the judge properly found, D.M. was “petrified” from these threats, moving to work at a different location to avoid the defendant. Therefore, the judge did not err in extending the harassment prevention order.

Order dated July 14, 2025, extending harassment prevention order, affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   While the extension order states that the order was to expire on July 1, 2026, we do not dismiss this appeal as moot. See Seney v. Morhy, 467 Mass. 58, 61-62 (2014).

2.   The defendant also argues that Target recording her phone calls was a violation of G. L. c. 272, § 99, and that her statements are protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. From the record before us, these arguments are raised for the first time on appeal and therefore we treat them as waived. See Century Fire & Marine Ins. Corp. v. Bank of New England-Bristol County, N.A., 405 Mass. 420, 421 n.2 (1989). Also, the defendant claimed that Target's conduct violated G. L. c. 93A, but Target is not a party to the underlying District Court case or this appeal.

3.   The judge noted, and we agree, that the defendant was referencing Luigi Mangione, who at the time was accused of murdering Brian Thompson, the Chief Executive Officer of UnitedHealthcare.