Howard & Wieler v. Humphreys
Filed 2/28/08 Howard & Wieler v. Humphreys CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
HOWARD & WIELER et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. HARRY W. HUMPHREYS, Defendant and Appellant. | G038715 (Super. Ct. No. 06CC01593) ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING; NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT |
It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on January 30, 2008, be modified as follows:
1. Following the final sentence on page 2 (which concludes . . . the award has vanished.), insert a new footnote number 1 and corresponding footnoted text, as follows:
In a petition for rehearing, Humphreys insists the appeal is not moot because H & W levied on one of his bank accounts, from which they took the entire balance of $2,580. But Humphreys forfeited this argument by failing to furnish any evidence in the record of this levy. His reliance on the order authorizing H & W to enforce the entire amount of the judgment does not establish the particular levy he complains of or any other ever took place. In any event, the relief Humphreys requests for the purported levy is itself moot. He seeks an order compelling H & W to restore the $2,580 with interest. But doing so would be a useless gesture because the arbitrators award, which we have now affirmed in case No. G038298, entitled H & W to much more than this amount, plus the same rate of interest Humphreys presumably seeks. Accordingly, the appeal remains moot and we decline to order a pointless reversal. (See Consolidated, Inc. v. Northbrook Ins. Co. (1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 888, 893 [it is clear that the reversal of the judgment would serve no useful purpose and would simply constitute an idle act]; accord, People v. Haskins (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 344, 350 [The law does not require idle acts]; see also Cal. Const, art. II, 13.)
This modification does not change the judgment. The petition for rehearing is DENIED.
ARONSON, J.
WE CONCUR:
SILLS, P. J.
OLEARY, J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line Lawyers.
