Levine v. Carrick
Filed 7/20/12 Levine v. Carrick CA6
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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
SIXTH
APPELLATE DISTRICT
AIMEE LEVINE,
Plaintiff and
Appellant,
v.
PAUL M. CARRICK,
Defendant and
Respondent.
H037598
(Santa Cruz
County
Super. Ct.
No. CV172137)
Paul M.
Carrick appeals from a restraining order entered against him in a
Aimee Levine. Because the restraining
order has expired by its own terms, the appeal is moot. We will accordingly dismiss it.
BACKGROUND
Levine and
her husband and child were tenants of Carrick on rural property located in the Santa
Cruz mountains.
Carrick apparently lived at the property as well. At some point before the hearing in this
proceeding, Carrick was ordered by the trial court in another proceeding to
discontinue leasing the property to tenants based on conditions at the property
that affected its habitability. Carrick
initiated a separate unlawful detainer proceeding to remove Levine and her
family from the premises. Meanwhile,
disputes between Carrick on the one hand and Levine and her family on the other
were ongoing and police were called to the property several times.
On September 15, 2011, Levine initiated
this civil harassment proceeding under Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6 in
which she requested orders to stop Carrick from harassing her and her
family. The court issued a
of hearing. After a hearing on September 29, 2011, the court issued
a written restraining order that same day directing Carrick to stop harassing
Levine and her family and to stay away from them. As Levine and her family were then in the
process of moving from the property, the order expired by its own terms after
six months, on March 1, 2012.
Carrick
appealed from the order on November
15, 2011.
DISCUSSION
Carrick
raises numerous challenges to the order in his brief filed February 8, 2012.
Levine declined to file a brief, instead filing a notice on April 24, 2012, in which she asserted
that the appeal is moot as the order expired by its own terms on March 1, 2012. We requested Carrick to show cause why the
appeal should not be dismissed for mootness.
He responded by contending, in essence, that the appeal should not be
dismissed because it raises issues of continuing importance that will likely
recur.
Various
events occurring after a notice of appeal
is filed can render the appeal moot and subject to dismissal on the court’s own
motion. (City of Hollister
Cal.App.4th 455, 479-480). An appeal is
moot when the occurrence of an event makes it impossible for the appellate
court to grant effective relief. (
Dogs for the Blind (1967) 67 Cal.2d 536, 541 (Eye Dog); Mercury Interactive
Corporation v. Klein (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 77-78.) Where the relief granted by the court is
temporal and expires by the time the appeal can be heard, as here, the appeal
is moot and subject to dismissal. (
(2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 139, 144.)
The policy
behind the mootness doctrine is that courts decide actual controversies and
normally will not render opinions that are merely advisory. (Ebensteiner
Co., Inc. v. Chadmar Group (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1178-1179.) But there are three general exceptions to
this rule under which a reviewing court may exercise discretion to decide an
appeal on the merits despite events mooting it.
These are: when a case poses an
issue of broad public interest and is likely to recur (Edelstein v. City & County of San Francisco (2002) 29 Cal.4th
164, 162); when the same controversy is likely to recur between the parties (
supra, 165 Cal.App.4th at p. 480; In
re Anna S. (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1489, 1498); and when a material question
remains between the parties despite mooting events (Eye Dog, supra, 67 Cal.2d at p. 541; County of Fresno v. Shelton (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 996, 1006).
Although
Carrick attempts to bring this case within one of these exceptions to the
mootness doctrine, none of them apply.
He asserts that Levine has pursued harassment proceedings against
another landlord, impliedly suggesting that the case presents recurring
issues. But even if it is true that
Levine is engaged in litigation with another landlord, the issues in this
appeal, which are necessarily dependent on the facts in this particular case,
do not rise to the level of broad public interest or importance. Nor has Carrick demonstrated that the issues
raised here are likely to recur even as between him and Levine. And no material questions remain between the
parties despite the restraining order having expired.
Because the civil harassment restraining order from which
Carrick appeals has expired by its own terms, and no exception to the mootness
doctrine applies, the appeal presents no actual case or controversy and is
moot. We will accordingly dismiss
it. DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
________________________
MÁRQUEZ, J.
WE CONCUR:
________________________
RUSHING, P.J.
________________________
PREMO, J.
