Hao

DISCUSSION

I. Damages Are Not Available Under Section 527.

Wang argues that section 527.6 does not permit the recovery of damages as a remedy, citing the plain text of section 527.6, rules of statutory construction, and the need to avoid unconstitutional and absurd results. Wang asserts that the trial court’s award of damages constituted prejudicial error under section 475. We agree. While this appeal was pending, our Supreme Court addressed this issue in Olson, supra, 12 Cal.5th 669, making clear that damages are not an available remedy for a successful section 527.6 petition. “[S]ection 527.6 provides a specialized procedure for a petitioner who has suffered harassment within the meaning of the statute to expeditiously seek a limited judicial remedy — injunctive relief to prevent threatened future harm . . . . A petitioner who also desires retrospective relief in connection with the same underlying conduct, such as tort damages, must do so separately.” (Olson, supra, at p. 673.) The Olson court elaborated: “That the petitioner in a section 527.6 proceeding has no ability to seek, and the court has no authority to order, redress of past wrongs through damages or otherwise…