Berkeley teacher ordered to pay legal fees of former BCR president


Related Posts

An Alameda County Superior Court commissioner ordered Yvette Felarca, a Berkeley middle school teacher and activist, to pay former Berkeley College Republicans, or BCR, president Troy Worden $11,100 in legal fees Thursday.

Worden and his attorneys initially filed a motion against Felarca in November asking for more than $100,000 in damages. The motion was in response to a temporary restraining order Felarca filed against Worden in September. Felarca eventually dismissed the restraining order in late October.

The decided $11,100 will cover Worden’s attorney’s fees, according to Mark Meuser, Worden’s attorney. The fees go toward the time Worden’s attorneys spent gathering evidence against Felarca in her petition for a restraining order.

“It’s outrageous,” said Ronald Cruz, Felarca’s attorney. “I think that the decision sends a message to women across the Bay Area to have second thoughts about getting a restraining order against your harasser.”

Judicial Commissioner Thomas Rasch ruled that Felarca did not file a restraining order against Worden in “good faith,” prompting the order for her to pay Worden’s legal fees.

Regarding the ruling, Cruz said Rasch’s statement was “false” and an attempt to “justify a predetermined outcome” in the lawsuit against Felarca.

In her petition for a temporary restraining order, Felarca, a By Any Means Necessary, or BAMN, activist, alleged that Worden stalked, threatened and harassed her in a series of incidents on Sproul plaza and at BAMN meetings. Initially, Worden was required to keep a 100-yard distance from Felarca. The distance was later reduced to 10 yards because the initial restraining order restricted Worden’s movement on campus.

Dhillon Law Group, representing Worden, said in a statement that Felarca filed a restraining order against Worden to limit his presence on campus when BCR invited conservative figures to speak on campus. Worden’s counsel produced evidence contradicting Felarca’s claims, according to the statement.

“We feel that this is a very good order, because the court saw that (Felarca’s petition for a restraining order) was a frivolous lawsuit brought to suppress Worden’s free speech,” said Meuser. “We think it was an important recognition by the court.”

Meuser added that the restraining order was a “political maneuver” that initially could have restricted Worden from being on Sproul Plaza for BCR events anytime Felarca was present as well.

In response to Dhillon Law Group’s statement, Cruz said the restraining order would not have limited Worden’s presence on campus because UC Berkeley is a “large” campus.

According to Cruz, Felarca and her attorneys plan to submit an appeal to the court to reverse the order.

Contact Adrianna Buenviaje at [email protected] and follow her on Twitter at @adriannaDC.

Please keep our community civil. Comments should remain on topic and be respectful.
Read our full comment policy
  • Conan Moats

    yep. court got this one right. She should have had to pay more. Abuse of the TRO.

  • Eduardo Blanco

    Hah, finally some justice. I’d rather she was behind bars but making her pay is pretty sweet.

  • DoNoHarm

    I am surprised that Yvette Felarca still has her teaching credential. I looked up the crimes that cause a teachers credentials to be revoked in California and was disappointed that assault was not included unless it is assault of a police officer. It used to be any violent felony would result in revocation of a teaching credential. The rules appear to have been made softer in recent years of teacher shortages to allow more credentialed teachers. Not a good solution for our children.

  • Scott B

    About time. Yvette Felarca is a far left terrorist that uses false accusations to prevent civil debate. She is a hazard to free speech.

  • Lucky Luke

    Politically I am about as far from republicans and Worden’s politics as you can possibly get, but Felarca’s bigotry needs to be called out.

    It is incredibly easy to get a Temp RO. You can allege anything, and show no evidence. No-one can challenge it initially.

    Here is what happened here. Felarca in her original TRO petition to the judge alleged that Worden harassed her on specific days and times. Worden could do nothing to immediately challenge those allegations. He eventually with his lawyer’s help gathered photos vids and other evidence that clearly proved her allegations were false. In order to challenge a TRO you have to go in front of a judge. Worden would have loved to present that evidence in front of a judge, but they had to show it to Felarca’s lawyer first. When her lawyer saw the evidence, she realized that Felarca would have been found to have perjured herself when she made those original allegations to obtain the TRO. So they withdrew the petition to avoid a perjury charge.

    So, effectively Felarca abused an otherwise crucially important safety tool for a very short-term political goal that had nothing to do with safety. She (a non-affiliate) just wanted to be able to use her TRO to push Worden (affiliate) off of any place on campus where she didn’t want him to be.

    It doesn’t matter what your politics are, but you’d better use the legal system without false pretenses when it limits someone else’s freedom. Ideally there should be restitution for abusing it like Felarca did, not just legal fees for collecting the evidence.

    If Felarca’s lawyer cares to protect women and anyone else who needs TRO protection she may want to start with NOT abusing the TRO process. If her lawyer wants to protect her client, she should have accepted to go in front of that judge challenged Worden’s evidence, and tried to obtain a permanent RO against Worden. But she is not a good lawyer, and her client is not very bright. Just shrewd. I am glad this order to pay came down.

    • Scott B

      Thank you for what you wrote. I am conservative and its refreshing.

    • Nunya Beeswax

      Felarca’s lawyer is Shanta Driver, a mover and shaker in the BAMN organization.

  • That Guy

    The TRA is designed to give those seeking it the benefit of the doubt and TRAs are issued on very little or no evidence. Political ploys like this weaken the prior restraint nature of the system to the detriment of people who actually need them.

  • cadcam

    Felarca is completely nuts.

  • roccolore

    Felarca is a Mexican supremacist pig.

  • THG957

    By any means, Ivette, by any means necessary, such as by paying $11,000 time and over, you can continue staying in the headlines.

    When the best of ends justify any means necessary, Gulag and Khmer Rouge labor camps become the actual ends. I am very happy that our society doesn’t want to follow you on your destructive path.

    For the record: I am not a Republican and I am very much against the GOP platform.

  • Jorge Carolinos

    “It’s outrageous,” said Ronald Cruz, Felarca’s attorney. “I think that
    the decision sends a message to women across the Bay Area to have second
    thoughts about getting a restraining order against your harasser.”

    Ronald Cruz, you are a joke.

    You file the restraining order as a way to get over politically, when it didn’t work out you then complain that it sends women the wrong message, this is all on you, you played the system in an unethical way and lost, now you want to change the terms of you loser status. You schemed and lost now you are the savior of people who might suffer(you claim) because of your schemes.

    What a crazy world these violent and irrational BAMN people have created for themselves.