Caleb Samuel Pesola, Respondent,

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2018).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A19-1150

Caleb Samuel Pesola,
Respondent,

vs.

Joel Patrick Jahraus,
Appellant.

Filed April 13, 2020
Affirmed
Smith, Tracy M., Judge

Chisago County District Court
File No. 13-CV-19-477

Caleb Pesola, Shafer, Minnesota (pro se respondent)

Dan Rasmus, Hovland & Rasmus, PLLC, Edina, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Rodenberg, Presiding Judge; Jesson, Judge; and Smith,
Tracy M., Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
SMITH, TRACY M., Judge
Appellant Joel Patrick Jahraus challenge s the district court’s issuance of a
harassment restraining order (HRO) that pr events him from contacting respondent Caleb

2
Samuel Pesola. 1 Jahraus argues that the evidence do es not support the district court’s
factual findings and issuance of an HRO. We affirm.
FACTS
Jahraus is Pesola’s former father-in-law. The relati onship between the two men
deteriorated following the demise of Pesola’s marriage to Jahraus’s daughter. The events
at issue in this case involve communications between Jahraus and Pesola and between
Jahraus and other persons in summer 2018 an d spring 2019. These communications were
generally by email and text message because Ja hraus lives in Florida and Pesola lives in
Minnesota.
In June 2018, Jahraus emailed a college friend of Pesola’s, expressing his anger with
Pesola and his frustration with the friend for supporting Pesola. Jahraus claims that he
wrote the email because he had heard that the friend was nervous that Jahraus might
interfere in his plan to adopt a child if he (Jahraus) learned that the friend was letting Pesola
stay with him. In the email, Jahraus denied any intent to jeopardize the friend’s adoption,
but he also made sex-related allegations about Pesola. Jahraus forwarded this same email
to Pesola’s brother, stating that it was “[f]or [his] eyes only.”
Some of the allegations Jahraus made stemmed from a 2017 discussion that Jahraus
and Pesola had about a health condition Pesola had at the time. Although Jahraus is a

1 Pesola, who represented himself at the district court, did not file a brief in this appeal. A
respondent’s failure to file a brief does not necessarily preclude this court from addressing
the merits of the appeal. Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 142.03.

3
physician and had prescribed Pe sola medications for other issu es, he did not diagnose or
provide medical advice related to this particular condition.
A month after the email to Pesola’s friend, Jahraus sent Pesola’s brothers an email
attaching a draft email he had written, but not sent, to Pesola’s girlfriend. The draft email
contained pages of insults and vulgar accusations directed at her and Pesola, as well as sex-
and health-related allegations about Pesola.
Although not directed to Pesola, Pesola eventually learned of all of these
communications. Pesola did not explain exactly when he first came to learn of the
messages, but the record shows that his brothers forwarded the messages to him in March
2019.
The next written communications in the record are from April 2019.2 Pesola began
the communications by texting Jahraus abou t a restaurant they knew, and the two
exchanged friendly messages over the next few days. Then Jahraus’s messages to Pesola
again became accusatory and hostile. Pesola offered to meet with Jahraus to clarify matters,
and the two arranged a meeting. Jahraus, however, canceled the meeting, and the two began
exchanging emails. Jahraus accu sed Pesola of having a ment al-health condition. Both of
them sent insulting messages. In some of the messages, Ja hraus told Pesola to stop
contacting him, but both parties continued messaging one another. In one message to
Pesola, Jahraus wrote that Pesola had “done [himself] in” and that “[his girlfriend]3 is next

2 The parties also had telephone contac t during the period between the written
communications in the record.

3 Pejorative term omitted.

4
in line.” Pesola interpreted this message as a threat of physical harm and told Jahraus never
to contact him again. Jahraus responded that he was coming to Minnesota “to see the boys
although I have plenty of other business up there” and that “[w]hat goes around comes
around,” but he also suggested that he was di scussing “internet exposure,” not physical
harm. Pesola responded that he would seek a restraining order if Jahraus contacted him
again. Jahraus responded with two more emails , but Pesola did not re spond again, so the
email communications ended.
About a month later, in May 2019, Jahraus wrote Pesola another email. In this final
email, Jahraus again accused Pesola of various acts of misconduct and deceit. He also
repeated his claim that Pesola has a mental-health condition.
A day after receiving this email, Pesola petitioned the district court for an HRO. The
district court ordered an ex parte HRO. At Jahraus’s request, the district court held an
evidentiary hearing. The district court then granted the HRO.
Jahraus appeals.
D E C I S I O N
We review the issuance of an HRO for an abuse of discretion. Kush v. Mathison,
683 N.W.2d 841, 843 (Minn. App. 2004), review denied (Minn. Sept. 29, 2004). We review
factual findings for clear error, giving due regard to the district court’s credibility
determinations. Id. at 843-44. We will reverse the issuance of an HRO if it is not supported
by sufficient evidence. Id.
A district court may issue a restraining order if it has “reasonable grounds to believe
that the respondent has engaged in harassme nt.” Minn. Stat. § 60 9.748, subd. 5(b)(3)

5
(2018). Harassment includes “repeated incidents of intrusive or unwanted acts, words, or
gestures that have a substantial adverse effect or are intended to have a substantial adverse
effect on the safety, security, or privacy of another.” Minn. Stat. § 609.748, subd. 1(a)
(2018). “[S]ection 609.748 requires both objectively unreasonable conduct or intent on the
part of the harasser and an objectively reasonable belief on th e part of the person subject
to harassing conduct.” Dunham v. Roer, 708 N.W.2d 552, 567 (Minn. App. 2006), review
denied (Minn. Mar. 28, 2006).
Jahraus argues that the district court ma de clearly erroneous factual findings and
that the HRO is not supported by sufficient evidence.
Factual Findings
Jahraus argues that the district court clear ly erred when it f ound that Jahraus had
“repeatedly sent unwanted messages including [T]witter messages and emails.” He argues
that the evidence is insufficien t to show that he used Twitte r or that his messages were
unwanted.
It is true that the record does not include any evidence of Jahraus sending messages
via Twitter.4 Twitter appears in the reco rd only in Jahraus’s characterization of his draft
email to Pesola’s girlfriend as a response to her Twitter post. The district court was
therefore mistaken in referring to messages from Jahraus via Twitter. But the district court
did not clearly err when it found that Jahraus repeatedly sent unwanted messages. Though

4 Jahraus also contends that the district cour t erroneously found that there were repeated
unwanted phone calls. But, while the district court references phone calls when discussing
Pesola’s allegations, it made no such finding.

6
Pesola may have initiated the parties’ renewed communications in April 2019, his friendly
message was soon followed by hostile and offe nsive messages from Jahraus. Pesola
explicitly told Jahraus to stop sending message s and that he was contemplating seeking a
restraining order. The same day that Pesola to ld him that, Jahraus se nt Pesola two more
emails, and he sent another unprompted screed a month later. This evidence supports the
determination that the communications were unwanted. While the district court’s reference
to Twitter was erroneous, the overall factual finding challenged by Jahraus is not clearly
erroneous. See Minn. R. Civ. P. 61 (requiring harmless error to be ignored).
Sufficient Evidence to Support HRO
Jahraus contends that there was no evid ence that his conduct substantially and
adversely affected Pesola’s safety, security, or privacy. But the district court concluded its
memorandum by stating that Jahraus intended his emails to have a substantial effect on
Pesola’s safety, security, or privacy, which also constitutes harassment under Minn. Stat.
§ 609.748 (2018). The record ev idence is sufficient to s upport the district court’s
determination and its issuance of the HRO.
Jahraus admitted that he was angry with Pesola and that he “wanted [Pesola] to feel
the pain of reliving all of it in an email.” It is reasonable to infer from the contents of
Jahraus’s messages that he intended to undermine Pesola’s security in his relationships and
his privacy. One of the emails asks Pesola , “What’s the matter? Threatened by a little
internet exposure about the harm you’ve done and continue to do? Or perhaps your

7
[girlfriend]5? Thought you could handle the Internet.” Jahraus suggested in another email
that he would “out . . . big time” what he alleged to be Pesola’s mental-health issue. Jahraus
also made allegations about Pesola’s health in emails to Pesola’s friend and brothers and
revealed other intimate details about Pesola. It was not an abuse of discretion for the district
court to conclude that these messages show an objectively unreasonable intent on the part
of Jahraus to have a substantial adverse effect on Pesola’s security and privacy.
Pesola’s responses make it clear that he in terpreted Jahraus’s messages as threats.
He, in fact, described them as physical thre ats of harm, which may not be an objectively
reasonable interpretation of Jahraus’s co mments. But Jahraus’s comments can be
reasonably read as threats to reveal private information about Pesola, especially in light of
Jahraus’s communications to Pesola’s family and friend that made allegations about
Pesola’s health and discussed intimate aspects of Pesola’s life. Given these threats, in
addition to the disparaging wa y in which Jahraus described intimate aspects of Pesola’s
life, it was not an abuse of discretion for th e district court to conclude that Pesola
reasonably believed that Jahraus’s conduct was harassment.
Jahraus also argues that the HRO lacks support because the district court described
his communications as “inappropri ate” and, as we stated in Kush, “inappropriate or
argumentative statements alone cannot be considered harassment.” 683 N.W.2d at 844. But
statements that meet the statutory standard are harassment, even if they are also
inappropriate. See id. at 845-46 (affirming HRO). And he re, the district court, while

5 Pejorative term omitted.

8
charitably describing Jahraus’s statements as “inappropriate,” also concluded that they met
the statutory standard. This determinati on was supported by the record. Jahraus’s
statements included multiple-page emails of insults related to Pesola’s character and
personal life. Jahraus also sent these intrusive messages to Pesola’s family and at least one
friend and suggested that he might disclose more information to others in the future. It is
certainly accurate to refer to Jahraus’s statem ents as “inappropriate,” but they were also
harassment.
Jahraus next contends that the district court should not have considered his
allegations about Pesola’s health in its harassment determination because (1) he informed
Pesola’s brothers about Pesola ’s alleged health condition out of concern for Pesola, and
(2) he did not have doctor-patient relations hip with Pesola. The record supports the
determination that Jahraus’s messages were intended to harass.6 Jahraus’s communications
to Pesola’s friend and brothers alleging that Pesola had a health condition, especially given
their pejorative context, are reas onably read as intrusive of Pesola’s privacy. As for the
absence of a doctor-patient relationship, Jahraus cites no authority suggesting that conduct
must violate a legal right to privacy for that conduct to constitute harassment under section
609.748. It was not an abuse of discretion for the district court to determine that Jahraus’s
disclosure was unreasonable, even if Jahraus was not bound by confidentiality.

6 Jahraus claims that the district court dete rmined that he disclosed the alleged health
information out of concern for Pesola. Bu t the district court only stated that, even if that
were the case, Jahraus’s conduct was still unreasonable.

9
Jahraus also argues that he never intended for the draft email addressed to Pesola’s
girlfriend to reach Pesola or hi s girlfriend and that the distri ct court should not hold him
responsible for Pesola’s brothers’ actions. Bu t the document did reach Pesola and, based
on its contents, Jahraus intended for the document to embarrass Pesola in front of his family
and friends. This conduct can constitute harassment. Cf. State v. Egge , 611 N.W.2d 573,
575 (Minn. App. 2000) (affirming jury dete rmination that defendant violated an HRO
requiring him not to contact or harass the victim by contacti ng her through a third party),
review denied (Minn. Aug. 15, 2000). The document contains various intimate details and
stories about Pesola. That Jahraus did not se nd the document to the “intended” recipient
and claims that he sent it “in confidence” doe s not change the fact that he was making
disclosures about Pesola to his family and that those disclosures foreseeably reached Pesola
himself. Those disclosures also showed that Jahraus was willing to follow through on his
threats in later messages to ex pose information about Pesola to others. The district court
did not abuse its discretion by considering the draft email in its decision to grant an HRO.
In sum, the evidence is sufficient to support the district court’s issuance of the HRO.
Affirmed.