Searles v. Archangel
The court held that, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §527.6(m), a petitioner for a civil-harassment restraining order must effect personal service on the respondent and that the trial court may not waive this statutory requirement in favor of alternative methods such as service by social-media posting, thereby affirming the superior court's dismissal of the petition for failure to serve personally and emphasizing that California courts must strictly adhere to.
Date Filed: January 22, 2021
Case Name: Searles v. Archangel
Case Number: B296011
Court: California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Seven
(‘The Court decides that, under California Code of Civil Procedure §\u202f527.6(m), a petitioner for a civil‑harassment restraining order must effect personal service on the respondent and the trial court may not waive that statutory requirement in favor of alternative methods such as service by social‑media posting. Accordingly, the appellate court affirms the superior court’s dismissal of the petition because the plaintiff failed to serve the respondent personally. The ruling underscores that California courts—whether in restraining‑order or probate proceedings—must adhere strictly to the statutory service mandates and cannot substitute novel electronic methods without explicit legislative authority.’, ‘210a8be5’)
This case summary was prepared for educational purposes. For the authoritative version, please refer to the full opinion or the official California Courts website.