Severson & Werson, P.C. v. Sepehry-Fard
37 Cal.App.5th 938, 249 Cal. Rptr. 3d 839 (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 527.8, the requirement to personally serve a respondent with notice of a workplace violence restraining order hearing at least five days before the hearing is mandatory and jurisdictional. An order issued in the absence of a respondent who received inadequate notice is void.
Facts:
- The law firm Severson & Werson had been involved in numerous lawsuits against Fareed Sepehry-Fard.
- Sepehry-Fard sent correspondence to employees of the firm containing veiled threats, including accusations of treason, a crime punishable by death.
- In 2015, Sepehry-Fard performed a 'citizen's arrest' on two of the firm's attorneys, which resulted in a sheriff's deputy detaining them for an hour.
- Shortly before the restraining order petition, Sepehry-Fard drafted and mailed purported 'arrest warrants' to several of the firm's employees.
- At the time, Severson & Werson was representing a bank in an unlawful detainer action to evict Sepehry-Fard from his foreclosed home.
- Severson & Werson alleged that Sepehry-Fard was a member of the 'sovereign citizen movement,' which the FBI has identified as a group known to commit violence against government and legal professionals.
Procedural Posture:
- Severson & Werson filed a petition in the trial court for a workplace violence restraining order against Sepehry-Fard.
- The trial court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) and set a hearing for a permanent order for September 5, 2017.
- Sepehry-Fard was personally served with the petition and notice of hearing on September 1, 2017, four days before the scheduled hearing.
- Sepehry-Fard did not appear at the September 5 hearing.
- The trial court proceeded with the hearing in Sepehry-Fard's absence and issued a three-year workplace violence restraining order against him.
- Sepehry-Fard (appellant) filed a timely appeal of the restraining order to the Court of Appeal, with Severson & Werson as the respondent.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a workplace violence restraining order issued under Code of Civil Procedure section 527.8 valid when the respondent was served with notice only four days before the hearing, did not appear, and the court did not issue an order shortening time?
Opinions:
Majority - Greenwood, P.J.
No. A workplace violence restraining order is void when issued without proper statutory notice to a respondent who does not appear. The five-day notice requirement in section 527.8 is mandatory and jurisdictional, meaning the court lacks the power to act without it. The court reasoned that the statute's use of the word 'shall' indicates the notice period is mandatory, not permissive. The court compared this requirement to the notice requirement for a trial under section 594, which is also considered jurisdictional. Because proper notice is a fundamental component of due process, holding a hearing without it constitutes a 'structural error.' This type of error affects the entire framework of the proceeding and requires reversal without any showing of prejudice, as it is impossible to assess how the hearing might have differed had the respondent been properly notified and able to participate.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies that statutory notice periods for restraining orders are jurisdictional prerequisites, not mere procedural formalities. By declaring the resulting order void, the court reinforces that a failure to strictly adhere to these requirements deprives a court of the power to proceed against a non-appearing party. The classification of this due process violation as a 'structural error' is significant; it relieves the appellant of the burden of proving prejudice, making it easier to overturn orders issued without proper notice. This ruling serves as a strict warning to petitioners and trial courts to ensure precise compliance with statutory service rules before conducting a hearing in a respondent's absence.
