Dental Bd. of California v. Miller
Filed 8/25/08 Dental Bd. of California v. Miller CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sutter)
DENTAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RICK MILLER, Defendant and Appellant. | C056513 (Super. Ct. No. CVCS07-0028) |
Defendant Rick Miller appeals in pro per from an order granting a preliminary injunction enjoining him from promoting, advertising, or providing dental services as defined under Business and Professions Code section 1625 or constructing, altering, repairing, and selling dentures and denture services, when the casts or impressions have not been made by a licensed dentist or if made by a licensed dentist, a written authorization signed by the dentist does not accompany the work order or the work order or the work is not performed under the direct supervision of the dentist.
On May 22, 2008, while this appeal was pending, the trial court entered summary judgment in favor of plaintiff Dental Board of California. Judgment was entered on July 9, 2008, permanently enjoining defendant from engaging in the same activities prohibited by the preliminary injunction. Thereafter, the Board moved to dismiss the appeal as moot.[1]
The preliminary injunction merged into the summary judgment and permanent injunction. Accordingly, the appeal is moot and must be dismissed. (Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. City of Berkeley (1976) 60 Cal.App.3d 123, 126, fn. 4; People v. Gordon (1951) 105 Cal.App.2d 711, 725.)
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
BLEASE , Acting P. J.
We concur:
NICHOLSON , J.
ROBIE , J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line Lawyers.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1] The Boards request to augment the record to include the order granting motion summary judgment and the judgment is granted. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.155(a).)
