{"id":998,"date":"2022-06-09T23:41:15","date_gmt":"2022-06-10T06:41:15","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.inedc.com\/22\/?p=998"},"modified":"2022-06-09T23:41:15","modified_gmt":"2022-06-10T06:41:15","slug":"court-of-appeal-judge-proud-erred-in-including-husband-of-defendant-in-civil-restraining-order","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.inedc.com\/22\/06\/09\/court-of-appeal-judge-proud-erred-in-including-husband-of-defendant-in-civil-restraining-order\/","title":{"rendered":"Court of Appeal: Judge Proud Erred in Including Husband of Defendant in Civil Restraining Order"},"content":{"rendered":"
(MetNews Staff Writer)<\/pre>\n
PLACERVILLE, CALIFORNIA, June 9, 2022 \u2014 A judge, in granting a civil harassment restraining order against a woman whose antics included using a tractor-trailer to shovel large amounts of donkey manure onto her neighbors\u2019 property, acted in contravention of her husband\u2019s procedural due process rights by including him in a prohibition even though he was not named as a defendant, the Third District Court of Appeal has held.<\/p>\n
The plaintiffs, Dustin and Toni Zierold, sought the order against Leigh Bacco and not her spouse, Matt Scribner. The couples have adjoining properties in the small town of Cool in El Dorado County.<\/p>\n
The Zierolds alleged that Bacco had made loud noises to spook their horses while being ridden, reported that a dog purportedly belonging to them was bothering her livestock when the dog wasn\u2019t theirs, and taunted them while they were conducting a memorial service for a horse. They also complained that Bacco, a nurse, had falsely reported to the employer of Dustin Zierold, a surgeon, that he had violated a patient\u2019s privacy rights.<\/p>\n
\u2018Practical Matter\u2019<\/h4>\n
At the hearing on the application for an order pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure \u00a7527.6, El Dorado Superior Court Judge Daniel B. Proud said, \u201cI think as a practical matter we need to include her husband\u201d in the order \u201cbecause we received evidence that her husband acting on her behalf has reached out to\u201d Dustin Zierold\u2019s employer.<\/p>\n
One provision of the order was:<\/p>\n
\u201cThe Scribners are not to intentionally cause debris of any kind, including manure, to go on the Zierolds\u2019 property.\u201d<\/p>\n
Hull\u2019s Opinion<\/h4>\n
In an opinion filed May 19 and certified for publication on Monday, the order was reversed to the extent that it applies to Scribner. Justice Harry E. Hull Jr. said (identifying the parties by initials):<\/p>\n
\u201cHere, M.S. was not identified as a party to be restrained in D.Z.\u2019s petition, and the content of the petition and accompanying declaration gave no indication that (a) M.S.\u2019s behavior would be at issue at the hearing, or (b) that the hearing would result in an order expressly prohibiting certain actions on his part. While the order might not identify M.S. may as the \u2018Restrained Person,\u2019 and the prohibition it places on his conduct is seemingly minor, as worded, the order is still a formal order of which M.S. might run afoul, independent of any action or influence of his wife. The result is that, in the future, should it be alleged that M.S. has intentionally caused \u2018debris of any kind\u2019\u2014not just piles of donkey manure\u2014\u2019to go onto the [Z.s\u2019] property\u2019 he will face potentially harsher consequences than if the order did not exist\u2026.This was a violation of M.S.\u2019s right to due process.\u201d<\/p>\n
Hull rejected Bacco\u2019s contention that her right to due process was violated by virtue of Dustin Zierold and his witnesses appearing via video conferencing while she appeared by telephone, saying that the argument was forfeited because it was not raised at the hearing.<\/p>\n
The case is D.Z. v. L.B., 2022 S.O.S. 2434.<\/em><\/p>\n
 <\/p>\n
Copyright 2022, Metropolitan News Company<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Opinion Says Due Process Was Violated in Placing Restrictions on Conduct of Non-Party<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":999,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_coblocks_attr":"","_coblocks_dimensions":"","_coblocks_responsive_height":"","_coblocks_accordion_ie_support":""},"categories":[8,4,6],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.inedc.com\/22\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/998"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.inedc.com\/22\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.inedc.com\/22\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.inedc.com\/22\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.inedc.com\/22\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=998"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/www.inedc.com\/22\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/998\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1000,"href":"http:\/\/www.inedc.com\/22\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/998\/revisions\/1000"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.inedc.com\/22\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/999"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.inedc.com\/22\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=998"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.inedc.com\/22\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=998"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.inedc.com\/22\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=998"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}