Meadville resident Lisa A. Miceli has been court-ordered to have no further communication or contact in any way with former National Basketball Association superstar Michael Jordan.

She also isn’t permitted to contact any Jordan family members or representatives.

In a court ruling issued Thursday, Crawford County Court of Common Pleas President Judge Gordon Miller granted Jordan’s request for a permanent injunction against Miceli, effective immediately.

Jordan filed the motion of an injunction claiming Miceli has breached a contract the two had signed in 2004. The issue involves the paternity of Miceli’s son. After a first paternity test indicated Jordan was not the father, the pair agreed that if a second DNA test showed the same result, Miceli wouldn’t engage in any further communication of any kind with Jordan or any member of his family or representatives.

The second DNA tests also excluded Jordan as the father. However, Jordan claimed that since Aug. 25, 2005, Miceli has sent nearly 400 e-mails and notes to him or his representatives as well as made hundreds of telephone calls.

Miceli has argued that the paternity testing could have been manipulated by Jordan to produce the negative result

In his order Thursday, Miller wrote that it’s regrettable Miceli chose to represent herself in recent legal proceedings. “It is obvious that she doesn’t, or isn’t willing, to grasp what this suit is about. This is a contract action, not a paternity action,” he said.

He wrote that Jordan set forth facts and theories in his lawsuit and Miceli was by law required to address each of those issues.

Instead, she filed 33 paragraphs of which “nearly all of her allegations have absolutely no relevance to this contract action. Defendant (Miceli) seems to be writing a novel rather than filing a pleading in the nature of an answer,” Miller wrote.

Miceli admitted to making attempts to directly contact Jordan by phone and e-mails. However, she said she is unsure if Jordan received any of them. She said all the e-mails and phone calls she made served a legal purpose, an admission she did attempt to communicate with Jordan or his representatives.

Miller ruled Miceli’s answer was “wholly inadequate.” He said Miceli admitted she entered into the contract, agreed to the terms, but still attempted to contact Jordan. “She does not raise any affirmative defenses,” he wrote.

The judge said the injunction is necessary to prevent a legal wrong — in this case, alleged improper communication — for which there is no adequate remedy at law except for the injunction.

Miller said he will not give Miceli an opportunity to file an amended answer.

He noted he reminded Miceli three times — twice during court appearances and once during a court memorandum and order in April — that this suit was a breach of contract, not a paternity suit.

“The defendant has had an ample opportunity to focus on what this suit is all about and to respond accordingly by, for instance, filing an appropriate answer or seeking to amend the answer prior to this day. We see no benefit in giving her an opportunity to amend her answer,” he concluded.