Restraining orders and similar legal filings were designed to protect individuals from legitimate danger. However, across the United States, denied restraining order filings continue to appear in background checks, screening systems, and online results — harming people even when courts reject the allegations. This article documents how legal filings connected to a Greystar-managed community continued to affect a resident’s livelihood, reputation, and family long after relocation and long after the legal petitions were denied or dismissed. It reflects a modern David vs Goliath struggle, where an ordinary individual continues to feel the consequences of a legal process tied to a large property management structure.

Where the Situation Originated

This experience began during the resident’s tenancy at Channel Point Apartments in Long Beach, a housing community managed by Greystar, the largest property management company in the United States. According to publicly filed court records:

• the petitioner listed in the Workplace Violence Restraining Order was Kathy Scheiwe, the property manager at Channel Point Apartments
• the initial filing in May 2025 was submitted by attorney Ashlie Nicole Brillault
• later filings were associated with attorney Kyle Genovese

Publicly available documentation also reflects individuals connected to the property environment, including:

• Brent Scheiwe – publicly identified as a resident associated with the property
• Kimberly Sottomayor – publicly associated with management or administrative contact
• Maximilian Fazio – publicly associated with administrative or communication roles
• Tran Banh – publicly identified in connection with administrative interaction related to the property
• Finn Scheiwe – identified publicly as a person associated with the household, although the resident has never met or interacted with this individual

These names are referenced solely because they appear in public records or publicly accessible documentation connected to the property environment and do not imply wrongdoing, intent, involvement, or liability.

Multiple Filings — All Denied or Dismissed

Public court records confirm:

✅ multiple Workplace Violence Restraining Order petitions were filed against the resident
✅ each petition was denied or dismissed
✅ no findings were ever made against the resident

Despite this outcome, the filings:

• appeared in background check systems
• surfaced in online search results
• caused hesitation among recruiters
• negatively affected employment opportunities
• gave the false impression of risk or instability

This occurred despite the resident having:

✅ a long professional career
✅ no history of workplace misconduct
✅ positive references
✅ and a clean record

Filings Continued After the Resident Moved Out

Public records further reflect that filings continued even after the resident moved out of Channel Point Apartments, despite:

✅ no longer living at the property
✅ no further involvement with management
✅ no interaction with any associated individuals

To clarify:

The resident has had no contact with the petitioner since moving out and has not engaged in any behavior that would justify any restraining order filings.

Impact on the Resident’s Life

Even without findings, the filings caused:

• loss of employment opportunities
• sudden interview reversals
• recruiter withdrawal after verifying the resident’s name
• reputational harm affecting family stability
• financial disruption and career derailment

For professionals whose careers depend on:

✅ trust
✅ background screening
✅ security sensitivity
✅ remote work credibility

—even a denied filing can be devastating.

For Black professionals, especially men, the effects are intensified by:

✅ implicit bias
✅ stereotype association
✅ heightened suspicion
✅ disproportionate consequences

Why This Is a National Concern

This situation highlights systemic vulnerabilities affecting:

✅ tenants who raise concerns
✅ individuals facing corporate scale
✅ people filing complaints with regulatory agencies
✅ whistleblowers
✅ anyone whose career depends on screening
✅ those without legal representation

Denied restraining orders should not:

❌ appear in screening databases
❌ imply danger or misconduct
❌ damage livelihoods
❌ follow people after relocation

What Needs to Change

Reform is urgently needed to:

✅ seal denied restraining order filings
✅ prevent background reporting without findings
✅ protect individuals from retaliatory filing patterns
✅ recognize racial and economic disparate impact
✅ safeguard employment and financial stability
✅ strengthen due process protections

A David vs Goliath Fight for Fairness

This article does not accuse any individual of wrongdoing.

Its purpose is to:

✅ document a lived experience
✅ highlight systemic flaws
✅ raise awareness
✅ prevent others from suffering similar harm

No resident should face long-term consequences from allegations that courts rejected and that bear no connection to workplace conduct or personal behavior.

Conclusion

Legal filings connected to a Greystar-managed community continued to affect a resident’s life long after moving out and long after dismissal because current systems allow denied petitions to appear in public records and background screenings. This issue represents a broader national vulnerability — one that must be acknowledged and addressed to protect innocent people.