Carrillo v. Woodford

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Filed 8/26/13  Carrillo v. Woodford CA4/1

 

 

 

 

 

 

>NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

> 

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts
and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or
ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b).  This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115>.

 

 

 

 

COURT
OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

 

DIVISION
ONE

 

STATE
OF CALIFORNIA

 

 

 
>

ARACELI CARRILLO,               Plaintiff and Respondent,               v.   DUSTIN M. WOODFORD,               Defendant and Appellant.

D062480         (Super. Ct. No. EV19722)

 

            APPEAL from
an order of the Superior Court
of href="http://www.adrservices.org/neutrals/frederick-mandabach.php">San Diego
County, William C. Gentry, Jr., Judge. 
Dismissed.

            Dustin M.
Woodford, in propria persona, for Defendant and Appellant.

            No
appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

            Dustin M.
Woodford appeals a restraining order prohibiting him from, among other conduct,
possessing a firearm.  Woodford contends
the trial court abused its discretion by not granting him an exemption from
that prohibition because he needs to carry a firearm as part of his job.  He asks us to remand the matter to the trial
court with directions to modify the restraining
order to grant the exemption upon a proper evidentiary showing concerning
his employment.  We decline Woodford's
request and dismiss his appeal as moot.

DISCUSSION

In processing the appeal, we
noticed the restraining order expired by its own terms on June 13, 2013. 
We solicited supplemental letter
briefs from the parties on whether the appeal is moot and should be
dismissed.  Neither party responded.

Under well-established principles,
this appeal is moot and must be dismissed. 
"If relief granted by the trial court is temporal, and if the
relief granted expires before an appeal can be heard, then an appeal by the
adverse party is moot."  (>Environmental >Charter> High School v. Centinela> Valley >Union> High School Dist. (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 139, 144.)  "[A]ppellate courts as a rule will not
render opinions on moot questions: 
'[W]hen, pending an appeal from the judgment of a lower court, and
without fault of the [respondent], an event occurs which renders it impossible
for [the reviewing court] if it should decide the case in favor of [appellant],
to grant [appellant] any effectual relief whatever, the court will not proceed
to a formal judgment, but will dismiss the appeal.' "  (>Ebensteiner Co., Inc. v. Chadmar Group (2006)
143 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1178-1179.)  Since
the restraining order challenged by Woodford has expired, his appeal is moot
and must be dismissed.

DISPOSITION

            The appeal is dismissed.

                                                           

IRION, J.

 

WE CONCUR:

 

 

                                                           

                         BENKE,
Acting P. J.

 

 

                                                           

                                   HUFFMAN,
J.