Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County No. 06CC01593, Robert D. Monarch, Judge. (Retired judge of the Orange Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.)
Catanzarite Law Corporation, Kenneth J. Catanzarite, Jim Travis Tice and Richard Vergel de Dios for Defendant and Appellant.
Law Offices of Neil L. Shapiro and Neil L. Shapiro for Plaintiffs and Respondents.
OPINION
ARONSON, J.
Harry W. Humphreys appeals from a postjudgment order denying his motion to vacate a judgment debtor examination scheduled after the trial court confirmed an arbitration award against Humphreys in favor of a dental corporation, Howard & Wieler, and its principals, Jeffrey Howard and Richard Wieler (collectively, H & W). Humphreys contends his related appeal (G038298) attacking the trial court’s judgment confirming the arbitration award operated to stay the debtor examination and all proceedings to enforce the award, which totaled $120,485. Humphreys did not post an undertaking. He argues the general rule requiring an undertaking to stay enforcement of a money judgment pending appeal does not apply because the arbitration award consisted solely of costs, namely, attorney fees and interest thereon. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 917.1, subd. (d).) According to H & W, this statutory exception does not apply because the attorney fees were awarded by an arbitrator, not the trial court, and therefore are not properly denominated as costs within the meaning of section 917.1, subdivision (d).
We need not resolve the parties’ dispute concerning whether an undertaking was required to stay enforcement because Humphreys’s present appeal is mooted by our decision in case No. G038298. Simply put, now that we have upheld the trial court’s judgment confirming the arbitration award, the formerly uncertain outcome of that appeal no longer furnishes Humphreys any basis to resist enforcement of the award or to avoid submitting to the judgment debtor examination.
“‘An appellate court will not review questions which are moot and which are only of academic importance.’” (Lester v. Lennane (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 536, 566.) A question becomes moot when the appellate court is unable to grant any effectual relief or render an opinion that affects the matter at issue. (Ibid.) Here, the record does not show a debtor examination ever took place, so it would be a useless gesture for us to conclude, if the merits required it, that the trial court erred by ordering one. Even if the examination had taken place, there is no effective relief we could grant now that Humphreys’s basis for resisting examination and enforcement of the award has vanished. In sum, once the merits of the underlying appeal have been resolved, questions pertaining to the necessity and validity of a stay bond are moot. (Bekins v. Smith (1918) 37 Cal.App. 802, 803;see also Rauer’s Law & Collection Co. v. Higgins (1950) 95 Cal.App.2d 483, 485.) We therefore dismiss the appeal. Respondents are entitled to their costs. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.276.)
WE CONCUR: SILLS, P. J., O’LEARY, J.