Nora v. Kaddo - Due Process required 

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

Appeal stated:

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

Nothing contained herein is tendered as nor should it be considered as legal advice.  What is legal is not necessarily justice.  Almost all of reality is non-"published", ergo, what is legally affirmed is always a retarded misrepresentation of reality.   Use at your own risk!