Opinion
E072116
03-05-2020
RACHEL D., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DIANE P., Defendant and Appellant.
Diane P., in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super.Ct.No. DVHE1802473) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. F. Paul Dickerson III, Judge. Appeal dismissed. Diane P., in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
This appeal involves a domestic violence restraining order that was issued to protect Rachel D. (and other family members) for one year from Rachel's sister, Diane P. Diane appeals from the order. The restraining order, however, has expired. We therefore dismiss the appeal as moot.
BACKGROUND
In November 2018, Rachel filed a request for a domestic violence restraining order against Diane. In addition to protection for herself, Rachel requested that the order protect her son, the sisters' mother, and the sisters' stepfather—all of whom were living with Rachel. The trial court denied the request for a temporary restraining order and ordered a hearing to determine if a permanent restraining order should issue.
Both sisters appeared at the hearing and testified. The trial court granted a one-year restraining order against Diane to protect Rachel and the sisters' mother. The order expired in December 2019. In light of the restraining order's expiration, we asked Diane to file a supplemental brief addressing why this appeal should not be dismissed as moot. She failed to do so.
It is unclear whether the order also included the sisters' stepfather as a protected person because there is a discrepancy between the reporter's transcript and the restraining order and the minute order from the hearing. Whether the stepfather was included is irrelevant to this appeal. --------
DISCUSSION
"'"As a general rule, when an event has occurred pending appeal from a lower court judgment which renders it impossible for the appellate court to grant an appellant any effectual relief whatever, the appeal will be dismissed as moot."'" (Nebel v. Sulak (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 1363, 1367 (Nebel).) This general rule of dismissal is subject to three exceptions: "'"(1) when the case presents an issue of broad public interest that is likely to recur [citation]; (2) when there may be a recurrence of the controversy between the parties [citation]; and (3) when a material question remains for the court's determination [citation]."'" (Malatka v. Helm (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1074, 1088; Nebel, supra, at p. 1368.)
None of the exceptions applies. No issue of broad public interest is involved in this appeal. Rather, the restraining order involved a longstanding dispute among sisters about the appropriate care of their parents—a fundamentally private matter. None of the issues presented in this appeal is of significant legal importance beyond the interests of these parties. (Cf. Nebel, supra, 73 Cal.App.4th at p. 1368.) Furthermore, Diane has not provided any offer of proof that the restraining order was renewed, so there is not a likely recurrence of the controversy between the parties. (Harris v. Stampolis (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 484, 496 [controversy likely to recur because restraining order was renewed, so appeal was not moot].) Nor are we aware of any material issues that remain and require resolution. Because no exception applies, we dismiss the appeal as moot.
DISPOSTION
The appeal is dismissed as moot. Rachel D. shall recover her costs of appeal, if any.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MENETREZ
J. We concur: SLOUGH
Acting P. J. FIELDS
J.