With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". stalking. See Roach v. Brower, 180 So.3d 1142, 1144 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015). “Each incident of stalking must be proven by competent, substantial evidence to support an injunction against stalking.” Touhey v. Seda, 133 So.3d 1203, 1204 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). When considering the sufficiency of the evidence, “[c]ourts apply a reasonable person standard, not a subjective standard, to determine whether an incident causes substantial emotional distress.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, Ms. Schack testified that Appellant banged on her door and left her a letter and a check. Employing a reasonable person standard, it is difficult to see how this behavior would rise to the level of causing “substantial emotional distress.” See Leach v. Kersey, 162 So.3d 1104, 1106-07 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, even viewing the evidence in the

A: holding that because petitioner failed to demonstrate that she suffered substantial emotional distress after her lovers wife contacted her through social media and the telephone the trial court erred in granting the injunction against stalking
B: holding the petitioner abandoned her cat claim when she failed to raise it in her initial appellate brief
C: holding that the plaintiff had placed her medical condition in controversy by alleging that she had suffered severe mental or emotional distress
D: holding that the trial court erred by granting the defendants motion to dismiss
A.