Nora v. KADDO

Opinion

ZELON, J.

Fadi Nora (Nora) petitioned the trial court for a restraining order under Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6; defendant James Kaddo (Kaddo) opposed the petition without filing a cross-complaint. At the close of proceedings, Kaddo requested affirmative relief in the form of mutual restraining orders. The trial court, having refused to hear witnesses tendered by each party, entered mutual restraining orders. We reverse, and remand for an evidentiary hearing on Nora’s petition.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Nora sought a temporary restraining order and injunction under Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6

1

against Kaddo, alleging threats and harassment. Because Kaddo sits as a judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, the

[1028]

matter was transferred to Orange County Superior Court for hearing. Nora brought the matter on for hearing on his request for injunction on January 21, 2003.

At the hearing, Nora sought to present witnesses, in addition to the written declarations that had accompanied his original petition. The trial court refused to hear those witnesses, and also refused a request by Kaddo to present witnesses; the court also failed to rule on Kaddo’s objections to Nora’s declarations. At the close of argument, Kaddo’s counsel asked that the restraining order be made mutual, and the court granted that request over Nora’s objections.

Nora filed a petition for writ of supersedeas, requesting a stay of the restraining order against Nora. We granted that writ on May 29, 2003. Both parties have timely appealed the rulings below.

DISCUSSION

Section 527.6 permits a person who has suffered harassment to seek an injunction. It was enacted “ ‘to protect the individual’s right to pursue safety, happiness and privacy as guaranteed by the California Constitution.’ ”