Opinion
C079706
08-30-2018
A.G., Respondent, v. AHMED ELSAYED, Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. SDR0044826)
In 2014, A.G. obtained a domestic violence restraining order against Ahmed Elsayed. Elsayed moved to vacate (set aside) the restraining order, contending it was obtained by fraud and perjury. The trial court denied the motion to vacate. On appeal, Elsayed contends the restraining order must be vacated because it was obtained by extrinsic fraud and perjury and because the family court lacked jurisdiction because he did not have a romantic relationship with A.G.
Our review of the case revealed that the restraining order at issue expired March 23, 2017. We requested supplemental briefing from the parties on the issue of mootness.
We find the appeal is moot and dismiss the appeal.
"If relief granted by the trial court is temporal, and if the relief granted expires before an appeal can be heard, then an appeal by the adverse party is moot. [Citation.] However, 'there are three discretionary exceptions to the rules regarding mootness: (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].' [Citation.]" (Environmental Charter High School v. Centinela Valley Union High School Dist. (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 139, 144.) None of the three exceptions to general rule of mootness applies here.
Elsayed contends this appeal is not moot, citing to In re Cassandra B. (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th 199. That case involved an expired restraining order issued by the juvenile court as part of dependency proceedings. The appellate court found the appeal was not moot because the issuance of the restraining order could have consequences in the future as the juvenile court must consider a prior restraining order in determining whether to issue a subsequent one. (Id. at pp. 209-210.) Here, there are no dependency proceedings involved. Elsayed has failed to show what consequences might flow from the expired restraining order.
This is not a case where the short time frame involved means it will always evade review. (See Conservatorship of Bones (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 1010, 1014-1015 [appeal not moot where order granting petition expired 180 days after rendition].) The notice of appeal was filed July 2, 2015. The case was not deemed fully briefed until December 11, 2017. Elsayed never filed a reply brief, despite the grant of several extensions of time totaling almost seven months. This court had to return numerous documents that he attempted to file for noncompliance. In short, any delay in hearing this appeal was largely due to the actions or inactions of Elsayed and his attorney. The restraining order of which he complains is now expired. No relief can be granted therefrom.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed as moot.
/s/_________
Duarte, J. We concur: /s/_________
Raye, P. J. /s/_________
Mauro, J.