How to Beat a Civil Harassment Restraining Order in California

A Respondent’s Complete Defense Guide to CCP § 527.6

By civil harassment restraining order lawyer Matthew Barhoma | Southern California | Last Updated: February 2026

Legal Disclaimer: This article is provided for general informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every restraining order case is fact-specific. You should consult a licensed California attorney regarding your particular situation. Last reviewed: February 2026.

You just got served. A stranger, a neighbor, a former coworker, or someone you barely know has filed a petition for a civil harassment restraining order against you under California Code of Civil Procedure § 527.6. A court has issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against you — without hearing your side of the story. You have days, not weeks, to respond.

The next few days may be the most legally consequential of your life. If you do nothing, or if you show up to the hearing unprepared, a permanent restraining order can be entered against you. That order goes into the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS), where every law enforcement officer in the state can see it. It can strip you of your right to own or possess firearms. It can destabilize your housing, complicate your immigration status, and follow you into every background check for years.

The purpose of this guide is to give you the knowledge to fight back. At Power Trial Lawyers, we have defended respondents in civil harassment restraining order hearings across Southern California — at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse in Downtown Los Angeles, the Lamoreaux Justice Center in Orange, the Central Justice Center in Santa Ana, and courthouses across Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. We know how these hearings work. We know what wins and what loses. This guide reflects that experience.

If you have been served with a civil harassment restraining order in California, call Power Trial Lawyers immediately at (888) 808-2179 or contact us today. Time is your most critical resource. We are civil harassment restraining order lawyers.

Power Trial Lawyers has handled hundreds of restraining order hearings across Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties, including contested CCP §527.6 trials involving firearm prohibitions, CLETS challenges, and appellate review. We are civil harassment restraining order lawyers.

What Being Served With a Civil Harassment TRO Actually Means

When a petitioner files a CH-100 form (Request for Civil Harassment Restraining Orders) under CCP § 527.6, they present a written declaration to a judge — without you present, without your input, and often without any verification of their claims beyond their own sworn statement. This is called an ex parte proceeding, and it is by design one-sided. The judge evaluates only whether the petitioner’s declaration shows “reasonable proof of harassment” and whether “great or irreparable harm would result” if no order issues. That is a low threshold.

If the judge grants the TRO, you are served with the order along with a hearing date, typically set within 21 days (or up to 25 days for good cause under CCP § 527.6(f)). The hearing is where you get your opportunity to be heard — but only if you are prepared.

The Stakes Are Real: What a Restraining Order Does to You

Many respondents make the critical mistake of treating a civil harassment restraining order as a minor civil matter. It is not. Here is what a permanent order means:

• CLETS Entry: The order is entered into the statewide law enforcement database. Every officer who runs your name will see it — during a traffic stop, at a border checkpoint, in any future interaction with law enforcement.
• Firearm Prohibition: Under California Penal Code § 29825, being subject to a restraining order prohibits you from owning, purchasing, or possessing firearms for the duration of the order. Existing firearms must be surrendered or transferred.
• Criminal Exposure: Violating any term of the restraining order is a misdemeanor under Penal Code § 273.6, punishable by up to one year in county jail and fines up to $1,000. A second violation can be charged as a felony.
• Public Record: Civil harassment restraining orders are public court records. They appear in civil records searches and can affect professional licensing, employment background checks, housing applications, and more.
• Immigration Consequences: For non-citizens, a restraining order can trigger serious immigration issues including visa denials, inadmissibility findings, and complications with naturalization applications.
• Housing Instability: If the petitioner lives near you — an apartment neighbor, a townhome HOA member, or someone in your building — a stay-away order can make it legally impossible for you to return to your own home without violating the order.
• Family Law Crossover: A civil harassment restraining order can be used against you in a concurrent or subsequent family law proceeding involving child custody or divorce.

A three-year restraining order is not a slap on the wrist. It is a multi-year legal disability with real-world consequences. Defense begins the moment you are served.

Civil Harassment Restraining Order Timeline (California)

• Day 0 – Petition filed (CH-100)
• Day 1–2 – TRO issued ex parte
• Day 5–10 – Personal service on respondent
• Day 21–25 – Evidentiary hearing under CCP §527.6(f)
• Same day – Order After Hearing entered or petition denied
• Immediately – CLETS update + firearm surrender enforcement

How CCP § 527.6 Actually Works: What the Petitioner Must Prove

To win a civil harassment restraining order hearing, the petitioner must prove their case by clear and convincing evidence. This is a critical distinction. In domestic violence restraining order cases governed by the Family Code, the burden of proof is preponderance of the evidence — meaning it is more likely than not that harassment occurred. Under CCP § 527.6, the burden is higher: clear and convincing evidence means the court must be persuaded that the facts are highly probable and substantially certain. This distinction is often the difference between a petition being granted and being denied.

To meet that burden, the petitioner must establish each of the following elements:

Element 1: A Course of Conduct

The statute defines “course of conduct” as a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. A single incident is generally not sufficient to establish harassment under CCP § 527.6. If the petitioner’s declaration describes one argument, one confrontation, or one perceived offense, the defense has strong grounds to challenge whether a course of conduct exists at all.

Element 2: Directed at a Specific Person

The conduct must be directed specifically at the petitioner — not at a group, a community, or generally bad behavior that incidentally affected the petitioner. Loud parties, general disputes with a homeowners association, or public confrontations that the petitioner happened to witness do not satisfy this element.

Element 3: No Legitimate Purpose

This is one of the most powerful defense arguments available. The course of conduct must “serve no legitimate purpose.” If your interactions with the petitioner arose from a genuine property dispute, a legal process, a co-parenting obligation, a business relationship, or constitutionally protected speech or assembly, those interactions have a legitimate purpose. They cannot form the basis of a harassment finding. Courts have consistently held that conduct directed at achieving a lawful goal — even if unwanted by the recipient — does not meet this standard.

Element 4: Reasonable Person Standard

The conduct must be of a type that would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress. This is an objective standard, not a subjective one. The petitioner’s hypersensitivity, personal anxiety, or pre-existing mental health conditions do not expand the definition of harassment. What matters is how a reasonable, average person in the petitioner’s position would have responded — not how this particular petitioner claims to have responded.

Element 5: Actual Substantial Emotional Distress

Even if the reasonable person standard is met, the petitioner must also show they actually suffered substantial emotional distress. Annoyance, displeasure, or general unhappiness is not sufficient. “Substantial” means significant; it must have materially impacted the petitioner’s life in some meaningful way. Courts in Los Angeles and Orange County apply this element with scrutiny when it appears that the petitioner is engaged in ongoing litigation with the respondent or has a strategic motive for filing.

Understanding these five elements is the foundation of every defense strategy. If any single element cannot be proven by clear and convincing evidence, the petition should be denied in full.

Leading California Civil Harassment Cases (CCP § 527.6)

• Brekke v. Wills (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 1400
  Clear and convincing evidence required; courts must find highly probable harassment.
• R.D. v. P.M. (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 181
  Single incidents generally insufficient absent credible threat of violence.
• Huntington Life Sciences, Inc. v. Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty USA, Inc. (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1228
  Legitimate purpose defeats harassment claims even if conduct is unwanted.
• Schild v. Rubin (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 755
  Reasonable person standard is objective, not subjective emotional distress.

The 7 Most Effective Defenses Against a Civil Harassment Restraining Order

Defense strategy is not one-size-fits-all. The best defense depends on the specific allegations, the evidence available, and the dynamics of the particular courtroom. That said, experienced civil harassment defense attorneys at Power Trial Lawyers consistently deploy the following defenses across Southern California courts.

Defense 1: The Legitimate Purpose Defense

This is arguably the most potent defense in CCP § 527.6 litigation. California courts have repeatedly held that communications, confrontations, or contact that serves a legitimate legal, personal, or business purpose cannot constitute harassment under the statute. Examples include: sending legal notices in connection with a property dispute; requesting the return of personal property; corresponding about shared financial obligations; communicating as required by a family court order; or filing formal complaints with homeowners associations, landlords, or law enforcement. If the underlying context of the alleged harassment involved a legitimate dispute — even one the petitioner finds unpleasant — the defense must bring this context to the court’s attention clearly and fully.

Defense 2: The Single Incident Rule

Petitioners frequently file based on one incident that scared or alarmed them — a single confrontation, one heated exchange, or a particularly contentious interaction. Under CCP § 527.6, unless that incident constitutes “unlawful violence” or a “credible threat of violence,” a single occurrence cannot establish the course of conduct required by the statute. If the petitioner’s declaration, once carefully analyzed, actually describes one event framed as many, this argument can be dispositive. At the hearing, respondents and their attorneys should be prepared to systematically dismantle the petition’s characterization of a pattern when the evidence shows isolated events.

Defense 3: Failure to Meet the Objective Reasonable Person Standard

Many petitions are filed by individuals who are genuinely distressed but whose distress is idiosyncratic — rooted in their particular sensitivities rather than objectively threatening behavior. A neighbor who claims to be terrified by eye contact, a coworker who finds normal professional feedback to be harassment, or a former associate who characterizes ordinary social interaction as alarming — these petitions often fail the reasonable person analysis. The defense should explore and present evidence of the petitioner’s history, any prior complaints against other individuals, and the objective nature of the respondent’s conduct. Witness testimony from neutral third parties who observed the same interactions and were not disturbed by them is especially powerful in this context.

Defense 4: False, Fabricated, or Exaggerated Allegations

Civil harassment petitions are filed unilaterally. The petitioner writes the declaration, selects the facts, and frames the narrative without challenge. The result is frequently a one-sided account that omits context, mischaracterizes benign conduct, or outright fabricates events. At the hearing, effective cross-examination is the primary tool for exposing these deficiencies. Skilled civil harassment defense attorneys deconstruct the petitioner’s timeline, highlight internal inconsistencies in the declaration, and introduce documentary evidence — texts, emails, call logs, security footage — that directly contradicts the petition’s characterization of events. The petitioner’s motive for filing is also fair game: an active civil lawsuit, a pending eviction, a disputed HOA proceeding, or a custody battle can each provide a powerful explanation for why false allegations were filed.

Defense 5: First Amendment and Constitutionally Protected Activity

Courts must be cautious when restraining orders are sought based on speech, written communications, or expressive conduct. Under California and federal constitutional law, restraining orders cannot be used to suppress protected speech simply because the recipient finds it offensive or upsetting. Filing complaints with government agencies, writing letters to landlords, posting truthful reviews online, or peacefully protesting in public spaces are all generally protected activities. Courts have also recognized that litigation-related communications — demand letters, notices of intent to sue, legal correspondence — are generally privileged and cannot serve as the basis for a harassment finding. Where the petitioner’s complaint rests primarily on communications or expressive conduct, this defense must be front and center.

Defense 6: Lack of Future Threat — No Ongoing Risk

A civil harassment restraining order is a prospective remedy, not a punishment for past conduct. Under CCP § 527.6(b)(3), courts must consider whether a restraining order is necessary to prevent future harassment. If the circumstances that gave rise to the petition have changed — if the respondent has moved away, the relationship has ended, a property dispute has been resolved, or the parties no longer have any reason for contact — the court may find that the prospective basis for the order is absent. This defense is particularly effective when the alleged harassment was tied to a specific event or relationship that no longer exists. Presenting evidence of the change in circumstances, along with declarations establishing that there is no ongoing or likely future contact, can defeat the petition on these grounds alone.

Defense 7: Video, Electronic, and Documentary Counter-Evidence

This is where cases are frequently won or lost in practical terms. Many civil harassment petitions describe events in one-sided narrative terms that would be impossible to verify — if not for the abundance of modern documentation technology. Ring doorbell cameras, building security systems, phone GPS data, social media location check-ins, surveillance cameras at neighboring businesses, and documented text message chains all provide contemporaneous, objective records of what actually occurred. In our experience at Power Trial Lawyers, petitioners whose declarations overstate or mischaracterize events are frequently impeached by this kind of evidence at hearing. Respondents should immediately secure and preserve every piece of electronic evidence available before the hearing, as it often tells a fundamentally different story than the petitioner’s declaration.

What Happens at the CCP § 527.6 Hearing — and How to Win It

Understanding the mechanics of the hearing itself is essential to effective preparation. Civil harassment restraining order hearings in Southern California courts are typically conducted as bench trials before a single judge. There is no jury. In high-volume courthouses like the Stanley Mosk Courthouse in Downtown Los Angeles (typically Department 2) or the Lamoreaux Justice Center in Orange County, judges often have limited time per case and must process many hearings in a single morning calendar. This reality shapes the hearing in important ways.

How Testimony and Evidence Are Received

Under CCP § 527.6(i), “at the hearing, the judge shall receive any testimony that is relevant, and may make an independent inquiry.” Both parties may testify. Both parties may introduce documentary evidence. Both parties may call witnesses. Unlike formal civil trials, the evidentiary rules are more relaxed — courts routinely accept declarations, text message screenshots, and other documents that might face more rigorous scrutiny in a full trial setting.

The petitioner goes first, presenting testimony and evidence in support of the petition. The respondent then has the opportunity to cross-examine the petitioner, present their own evidence and testimony, and call defense witnesses. The respondent’s attorney may also present a closing argument.

The Importance of Your Response Declaration (Form CH-120)

Respondents have the right to file a Response (Form CH-120) before the hearing. Filing this response is critical and should never be skipped. The response declaration is your opportunity to present your version of events in writing before the hearing. It allows the judge to understand the full context, not just the petitioner’s one-sided account, before anyone takes the stand. A well-drafted CH-120 sets the narrative frame and can shift the judge’s initial impression significantly. It should address each allegation with specific, factual denials; provide context for disputed interactions; and, where possible, attach documentary exhibits.

Cross-Examination: The Most Powerful Defense Tool

Effective cross-examination of the petitioner is often the turning point in civil harassment cases. Petitioners who file on false or exaggerated bases frequently have not anticipated being questioned closely about their declarations. A skilled attorney will identify inconsistencies between the declaration and the petitioner’s hearing testimony, highlight omitted facts that undercut the harassment narrative, probe the petitioner’s motive for filing, and confront the petitioner with documentary evidence that contradicts their account. In our experience at Power Trial Lawyers handling hearings across Los Angeles and Orange County, petitioners who come to court without legal representation are particularly susceptible to effective cross-examination because they have not been coached on the elements of the statute or the evidentiary weaknesses in their petitions.

Presenting Your Defense Case: Narrative Over Denial

The most common mistake unrepresented respondents make is treating the hearing as an opportunity to deny everything the petitioner said. Denial alone rarely wins. What wins is an affirmative, coherent counter-narrative supported by evidence. This means: presenting a clear timeline of events that contextualizes the disputed interactions; introducing documentary evidence that directly contradicts the petition; presenting witnesses who observed the relevant events and can speak to the respondent’s conduct; and, where appropriate, introducing evidence of the petitioner’s own misconduct, prior complaints, or motive to fabricate. Judges in Los Angeles and Orange County courts have limited time and respond well to organized, evidence-backed presentations with a clear story arc.

Evidence to Gather Before Your Hearing: A Tactical Checklist

Time between service and hearing is short — typically 21 days. Every day you wait is evidence that may be lost. Here is the evidence that should be gathered and preserved immediately:

• Security and Surveillance Footage: Check Ring doorbells, building lobby cameras, hallway cameras, and nearby business surveillance systems. Footage is often overwritten within days. Preserve and download immediately.
• Text Messages and Emails: Screenshot and export every communication between you and the petitioner. Include timestamps, read receipts, and the complete thread — not selected excerpts. Do not delete any messages.
• Phone Call Logs: Pull call records showing who called whom, when, and for how long. These are available directly from your carrier or in your phone settings.
• Social Media: Screenshot any relevant posts, comments, direct messages, or location check-ins from either party. Archive and timestamp before anything can be deleted.
• GPS and Location Data: If a specific location claim is at issue, your phone’s location history (Google Maps Timeline, iPhone Significant Locations) may be decisive.
• Witness Declarations: Identify and contact any neutral third parties who observed the relevant interactions. Written declarations under penalty of perjury carry significant weight. Eyewitnesses from building common areas, workplaces, or neighborhood settings can corroborate your account and neutralize the petitioner’s version.
• Prior Communications About the Dispute: If the alleged harassment arose from an underlying legal dispute — property, money, a legal proceeding — gather all documentation of that dispute including demand letters, court filings, HOA correspondence, or any communications that establish legitimate purpose.
• Petitioner’s Own Communications About You: Any messages, emails, social media posts, or recorded statements in which the petitioner’s own words contradict their harassment allegations are gold. Messages where the petitioner initiates contact, makes threats, or discusses a strategic reason for filing can be profoundly damaging to their credibility.
• Prior False Complaints: If the petitioner has filed prior restraining order petitions that were denied, or has made prior false reports to law enforcement, these records may be admissible to challenge credibility.

Organize all evidence in chronological order before the hearing. In courts like the Stanley Mosk or the Central Justice Center, judges appreciate organized, tabbed evidence binders. Disorganized presentations lose credibility and waste the court’s limited time.

Power Trial Lawyers regularly litigates CCP §527.6 hearings in Southern California (Los Angeles County, Orange County, Riverside County, San Bernardino County, and San Diego County) and has defended hundreds of respondents facing firearm prohibitions, CLETS entries, and permanent restraining orders.

Critical Mistakes Respondents Make That Lose Cases

Power Trial Lawyers has seen respondents in otherwise winnable cases make preventable errors that handed the petitioner an easy victory. Here are the most damaging mistakes:

Mistake 1: Ignoring the TRO or Failing to File a Response

Some respondents believe that not showing up or not responding will make the problem go away. The opposite is true. If you do not appear at the hearing, the court can grant a default restraining order based solely on the petitioner’s declaration. You will have no opportunity to be heard and no ability to challenge the evidence. Filing the CH-120 response and appearing at the hearing are non-negotiable.

Mistake 2: Contacting the Petitioner Before the Hearing

Once a TRO has been issued, all contact with the petitioner is prohibited unless the order specifically permits it. Any contact — by phone, text, email, social media, or through a third party at your direction — constitutes a criminal violation of PC § 273.6. More critically, any contact will be presented at the hearing as evidence of continued harassment, severely damaging your defense.

Mistake 3: Going Pro Se in a Complex Case

Respondents who represent themselves frequently arrive at hearings without understanding the statute’s elements, without a coherent evidentiary strategy, and without the ability to conduct effective cross-examination. They are often outmaneuvered even by a represented petitioner, and many lose cases that an attorney would have won. Given the serious, multi-year consequences of a restraining order, this is not the proceeding to cut costs on legal representation.

Mistake 4: Underestimating the Judge’s Time Constraints

Judges in high-volume civil harassment departments handle dozens of hearings per calendar. Rambling, disorganized, or emotionally reactive presentations waste the court’s time and erode credibility. The most effective respondents — and attorneys — present their case cleanly, quickly, and with evidence in hand. Preparation is everything.

Mistake 5: Focusing Entirely on Denial Rather Than Affirmative Defense

Respondents who spend the entire hearing saying “that’s not true” without presenting their own evidence, witnesses, and counter-narrative rarely succeed. The petitioner has already framed the narrative in their declaration. Simply denying it is not enough. You must dismantle it and replace it with a compelling, evidence-supported alternative account.

Consequences of Losing: Why the Stakes Are Higher Than You Think

If the hearing does not go your way and a permanent Order After Hearing is entered, the consequences extend well beyond the order itself.

Duration and Renewal

An order after hearing under CCP § 527.6 can last up to three years. Before the order expires, the petitioner can file for renewal without having to show any new incidents of harassment. Under CCP § 527.6(j)(1), a renewal can be granted if the petitioner “reasonably fears” future harassment — an extremely low bar that virtually guarantees renewal if the petitioner requests it. A single restraining order can therefore effectively become permanent through successive renewals.

Firearm Implications

California Penal Code § 29825 prohibits any person subject to a civil harassment restraining order from possessing, owning, purchasing, receiving, or attempting to purchase or receive any firearm. This prohibition takes effect immediately upon service of the TRO. If you are a licensed gun owner, you are required to surrender your firearms to law enforcement or transfer them to a licensed dealer within a specified time. Failure to comply is a separate criminal offense.

Downstream Legal Exposure

A restraining order on your record can be used against you in ways that extend far beyond the original dispute. Family law courts in Los Angeles and Orange County routinely consider civil harassment restraining orders when making custody determinations. Professional licensing boards for law, medicine, nursing, contracting, and other regulated fields ask about restraining orders and may initiate disciplinary proceedings. Employers conducting background checks will find the order in civil court records. Landlords run civil record searches as part of the rental application process.

Immigration

For non-U.S. citizens, a civil harassment restraining order can affect virtually every immigration benefit or status. It may be considered in determining whether an applicant has “good moral character” for naturalization purposes. It can complicate visa renewals, green card applications, and admissibility determinations. In some circumstances, violations of restraining orders can trigger grounds of inadmissibility or deportability. Non-citizen respondents should consult both a civil harassment defense attorney and an immigration attorney immediately.

After the Hearing: Appealing, Modifying, or Terminating an Order

If the hearing does not result in a denial, respondents have options. The legal process does not end at the hearing.

Appealing the Order

A permanent order after hearing entered under CCP § 527.6 is a final appealable order. The respondent may file a notice of appeal within 30 days of entry of the order. Appeals of civil harassment restraining orders are heard by the California Court of Appeal — in the Second District for most Los Angeles County cases, or the Fourth District for Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino County cases. Grounds for appeal include: the evidence was legally insufficient to support the order; the court applied the wrong legal standard; the petitioner failed to prove one or more required elements; or the court committed reversible procedural error. Given the short timeline for appeal, respondents who intend to appeal should retain appellate counsel immediately after the hearing.

Motion to Terminate or Modify (CCP § 533)

Under CCP § 533, either party may apply to the court for modification or termination of an existing order if a material change in circumstances has occurred. For respondents, this means that if circumstances have changed significantly since the order was entered — the parties have moved, the underlying dispute has been resolved, or new evidence has emerged that was not available at the original hearing — a motion to terminate can be filed with the issuing court. This is a separate proceeding from an appeal and does not require showing legal error in the original decision.

Opposing Renewal

When the petitioner files for renewal before the order expires, the respondent has the right to oppose the renewal. A renewal hearing is another full opportunity to present evidence. If circumstances have changed, if the petitioner’s claimed fear is not objectively reasonable given the passage of time and absence of any new incidents, or if the petitioner’s declaration contains provably false claims, the renewal can be denied. Respondents who allow the order to renew by default without opposition will typically face the order continuing indefinitely.

Power Trial Lawyers: Courthouse-Specific Experience Across Southern California

Civil harassment restraining order defense is not a generic legal service. What works in one courthouse may not work in another. Judicial tendencies, courtroom culture, evidentiary practices, and procedural norms differ meaningfully across Southern California courts. Power Trial Lawyers has developed specific, litigation-tested expertise across every major courthouse in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties.

Los Angeles County Courts

In Los Angeles County, civil harassment matters are heard primarily at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse in Downtown Los Angeles, though matters also move through the Airport Courthouse (LAX), the Chatsworth Courthouse in the West San Fernando Valley, the Van Nuys Courthouse, the Pasadena Courthouse, the Long Beach Courthouse, the Torrance Courthouse, and many others depending on the parties’ residence and the nature of the dispute. The attorneys at Power Trial Lawyers regularly appear in these courtrooms and understand the distinct procedural tendencies, evidence preferences, and scheduling practices that shape outcomes in each location.

Orange County Courts

In Orange County, civil harassment cases are concentrated at the Central Justice Center in Santa Ana, the Lamoreaux Justice Center in Orange, and the North Justice Center in Fullerton. Our attorneys have appeared extensively in these courthouses on restraining order matters and understand the distinctive approach that Orange County judicial officers bring to CCP § 527.6 cases. The pace of hearings, the expectation of organized evidence presentation, and the tolerance for contested testimony vary meaningfully from what respondents and attorneys encounter in Los Angeles County courts.

Riverside and San Bernardino Counties

Our practice extends into the Southwest Justice Center in Murrieta, the Riverside Hall of Justice, the Rancho Cucamonga Courthouse, and other Inland Empire courthouses. As these counties’ populations have grown, civil harassment filings have increased commensurately. Respondents in these counties are entitled to the same sophisticated defense as those in urban Los Angeles — and Power Trial Lawyers is prepared to provide it.

Media Recognition and Legal Authority

The attorneys at Power Trial Lawyers have been recognized as legal commentators by Fox News, ABC, CNN, Forbes, the Los Angeles Times, the Associated Press, Court TV, and Law and Crime. This media recognition is a reflection of the firm’s deep expertise in California civil and criminal law, including restraining order litigation. When we advise clients on defense strategy, we draw on the same analytical rigor we apply when explaining California law to national media audiences.

Power Trial Lawyers represents respondents in civil harassment restraining order cases across Los Angeles County, Orange County, Riverside County, and San Bernardino County. Call (888) 808-2179 today for a free consultation. The clock is running.

Frequently Asked Questions: Civil Harassment Restraining Order Defense in California

Conclusion: Defense Begins Now

A civil harassment restraining order petition is a serious legal proceeding with serious, multi-year consequences. The petitioner filed it unilaterally, without your input, and the TRO was issued on their declaration alone. But the hearing — your hearing — is where the full picture is presented. It is where the burden of proof applies. It is where evidence is tested. And it is where skilled, prepared, aggressive defense can and does prevail.

At Power Trial Lawyers, we do not treat civil harassment hearings as minor civil disputes. We prepare every case the way we prepare every trial: with full factual investigation, comprehensive evidence review, a disciplined cross-examination strategy, and an affirmative defense narrative built to persuade. We have defended respondents across dozens of Southern California courthouses and we understand how these hearings actually work at the ground level — not just in theory.

The clock starts the day you are served. Call Power Trial Lawyers at (888) 808-2179 for a free consultation. Our attorneys are available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Let us build your defense.