Legal Question in Civil Litigation in California

void restraining order

Please define for me the difference between ''void on the face'' and ''merely voidable by sub-facial realities/issues, which cannot be violated with impunity.''

It is stunning to me how many judges and commissioners in Riverside County, CA issue

Civil Restraining Orders [ CCP 527.6 and CCP 527.8] disregarding the required legislative statutory criteria that is well supported by case law.

1. CCP 527.6 is for protection of private individuals, or, a natural person.

CCP 527.8 is for business, police departments, sheriff's, etc.

When I demanded an investigation against two police officers they began a request for a restraining order against me under CCP 527.6 and won it without meeting legislative, statutory criteria for such.

Is their order ''void on the face'' or, simply ''voidable?''


Asked on 2/22/08, 4:47 pm

1 Answer from Attorneys
Edward Hoffman Law Offices of Edward A. Hoffman

Re: void restraining order

It may be neither, and it's not even clear to me that it was improper. Demanding an official investigation is not grounds for a restraining order, but if the officers had other concerns the order may have been proper. Being a police officer does not make one ineligible for a restraining order that would be available to others under similar circumstances.

Also, even if the order was improper, if it is just a TRO and you have yet to present your side to the court, the judge may not realize what he has done.

Read more
Answered on 2/22/08, 5:09 pm


Related Questions & Answers

More General Civil Litigation questions and answers in California