Defendants argue that the procedures applicable to
California Code of Civil Procedure § 527.6 are expedited and
self-contained. Citing Nora v. Kaddo, 116 Cal.App.4th 1026, 1028
(2004), Defendants contend that there is no full due process
trial on the merits following the issuance of the injunction
pursuant to Section 527.6 and the order and supporting facts
should not be given preclusive effect.
The Kaddo Court addressed the propriety of a trial court’s
ruling on a Section 527.6 petition on the papers without taking
testimony. In ruling that the decision was error, the Court of
This ruling deprived both parties of
important rights that the statute expressly
preserved to them ....
‘[T]he procedure for issuance of an
injunction prohibiting harassment is selfcontained.
There is no full trial on the
merits to follow the issuance of the
injunction after the hearing provided by Code
of Civil Procedure section 527.6, subdivision
(d). That hearing therefore provides the
only forum the defendant in a harassment
proceeding will have to present his or her
case. To limit a defendant’s right to
present evidence and cross-examine as
respondents would have us to do would run the
real risk of denying such a defendant’s due
process rights. ...’ ....
Defendants also cite Byers v. Cathcart