Can stalking injunctions be based on conduct directed at a business rather than an individual? TKSCo-Pack Manufacturing, LLC v. Wilson Explained

In TKSCo-Pack Manufacturing, LLC v. Wilson, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed important questions about the scope of civil stalking injunctions and the standards for contempt proceedings. The case arose from a family business dispute between brothers Troy and Doug Wilson.

Background and Facts

Doug Wilson worked as production manager for TKSCo-Pack Manufacturing, a company co-owned by his brother Troy. After Doug left the company, Troy alleged that Doug engaged in various acts to harm the business, including convincing employees to sabotage operations, making false regulatory complaints, and threatening to contact customers. Troy obtained a temporary stalking injunction and later a permanent civil stalking injunction. When Doug allegedly violated the injunction through Facebook posts and customer communications, Troy sought contempt sanctions.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed three main issues: (1) whether conduct “aimed at [a] company” can constitute a course of conduct directed at an individual for stalking purposes; (2) whether the trial court properly applied criminal rather than civil contempt standards; and (3) whether the court abused its discretion in dismissing tort claims without prejudice.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court of appeals affirmed on all issues. Relying on Ragsdale v. Fishler, the court held that the stalking statute’s “directed at” requirement is satisfied through an objective assessment of whether the respondent engaged in conduct prohibited by the statute. Even if conduct is primarily “aimed at” a company, it can still legally qualify as directed at an individual if it falls within the statute’s prohibited acts. The court also affirmed the trial court’s application of criminal contempt standards, finding that since Doug had substantially complied with the injunction, sanctions would primarily serve to vindicate the court’s authority rather than compel compliance.

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies that stalking injunctions can protect individuals even when the respondent’s conduct is primarily directed at a business entity. Practitioners should note that courts will apply an objective test focusing on whether specific acts fall within the statute’s prohibited conduct categories. For contempt proceedings, attorneys must carefully consider whether the primary purpose is punishment or compliance, as this determines both the applicable burden of proof and procedural requirements.