D.Z. v. L.B.
Annotate this CaseD.Z. and T.Z. moved to Cool, California in February 2018. The Z.s’ property shared a property line with L.B. and M.S.’s property. According to D.Z., L.B. has “relentlessly stalked and harassed” the Z.s since the Z.s moved to Cool. L.B. and M.S. appealed an order granting D.Z. a civil harassment restraining order pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6. L.B. and M.S. argued their due process rights were violated when the court issued the order: L.B.’s rights were violated because the order was issued after a hearing at which D.Z.’s witnesses appeared via video conference, but L.B. only appeared by telephone; M.S.’s rights were violated because he was not named and given notice as a respondent to the petition, and he did not appear in the action in the trial court. After review, the Court of Appeal found L.B. forfeited her challenge to the order as it applied to her by failing to object to the video conference versus telephone appearances during the hearing in the trial court. The Court reversed the trial court’s order to the extent it bound M.S.: "Here, M.S. was not identified as a party to be restrained in D.Z.’s petition, and the content of the petition and accompanying declaration gave no indication that (a) M.S.’s behavior would be at issue at the hearing, or (b) that the hearing would result in an order expressly prohibiting certain actions on his part. While the order might not identify M.S. may as the 'Restrained Person,' and the prohibition it places on his conduct is seemingly minor, as worded, the order is still a formal order of which M.S. might run afoul, independent of any action or influence of his wife. ... This was a violation of M.S.’s right to due process."
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.