D.Z. v. L.B. CA3, 79 Cal.App.5th 625

Neighbors in El Dorado County: D.Z. and wife T.Z. alleged repeated harassment by neighbor L.B. (and incidents involving L.B.’s husband, M.S.).
In 2019 the parties entered a non‑CLETS stipulated restraining order; in September 2020 D.Z. filed a CLETS civil harassment petition naming only L.B. (seeking protection for D.Z. and T.Z.).
Allegations in the petition included L.B. pushing donkey manure onto the Z.s’ property, making false reports to animal control and D.Z.’s employer, peering/taunting at a burial, and creating loud noises to spook horses. The petition did not allege misconduct by M.S. nor seek to restrain him.
At the October 15, 2020 hearing, D.Z., his counsel, and a witness appeared by Zoom video; L.B. and her counsel appeared by telephone audio only. M.S. did not appear.
The trial court issued a CLETS civil harassment restraining order (expires Oct. 15, 2023) restraining L.B.; it also included a provision binding the S.s (both L.B. and M.S.) not to intentionally cause debris, including manure, to go onto the Z.s’ property. L.B. and M.S. appealed.
The Court of Appeal affirmed as to L.B. (finding forfeiture of the appearance‑based due process claim) and reversed the provisions as to M.S. (holding binding M.S. without notice violated his due process rights) and remanded to amend the order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (D.Z.)	Defendant's Argument (L.B./M.S.)	Held
Whether L.B.'s procedural due process rights were violated because the court could see witnesses by Zoom but L.B. testified by phone (audio only).	Video appearances were proper; no unfairness in the proceeding; court heard testimony and assessed credibility.	L.B.: inability of the court to observe her demeanor deprived her of due process.	Forfeited: L.B. failed to timely object or request a continuance/relief; appeal denied as to L.B.
Whether the restraining order may validly bind M.S. when he was not named or given notice in the petition.	The court should include M.S. because evidence showed he acted on L.B.'s behalf and third‑party harassment was a risk.	M.S.: not named or served; lacked notice and opportunity to defend; therefore due process violated.	Reversed as to M.S.: imposing a binding prohibition on M.S. without notice violated due process; remand to amend order.

In re Seaton, 34 Cal.4th 193 (2004) (articulates forfeiture rule for appellate review—failure to object in trial court forfeits claim on appeal)
People v. McKinnon, 52 Cal.4th 610 (2011) (applies general forfeiture principle to appellate challenges, including constitutional claims)
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (constitutional rights may be forfeited by failure to timely assert them)
Schraer v. Berkeley Property Owners’ Ass’n, 207 Cal.App.3d 719 (1989) (due process requires more formal procedures and clear‑and‑convincing proof before issuing long‑term harassment injunctions)
In re Jonathan V., 19 Cal.App.5th 236 (2018) (procedural due process claims reviewed de novo)
People v. Partida, 37 Cal.4th 428 (2005) (failure to raise a due process argument in the trial court forfeits the claim on appeal)