Vo

Vo v. Le CA6

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 27, 2026H051626California4,230 words

Opinion

Opinion

Lie, J.

I. BACKGROUND

Vo’s and Le’s properties are adjacent to each other and sit atop a hill, with Le’s property at a higher elevation. After relations between the neighbors escalated into physical violence, Vo obtained a CHRO against Le, which (among other things)

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 527.6 permits a person suffering from harassment to seek “an order after hearing prohibiting” such harassment. (§ 527.6, subd. (a)(1).) prohibited Le from being within 50 yards of Vo’s residence, person, and other real and personal property.2 The evidence supporting Vo’s CHRO is not before us, but it is undisputed that Pleasant Vista Drive is Le’s sole means of accessing his property and a part of that road crosses Vo’s property. Le has an easement that permits him to use a portion of Vo’s property for ingress and egress. Le filed his own request for a restraining order against Vo in September 2022, alleging that Vo, since obtaining the CHRO, had begun a campaign of harassment against Le by repeatedly trespassing on Le’s property, recording Le on his cell phone, calling the police to falsely report Le for violations of the CHRO, blocking the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.