Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. LQ010008, R. Carlton Seaver, Judge.
Anousheh Ashouri, in pro. per., for Respondent and Appellant.
No appearance for Petitioner and Respondent Hami Golbar.
BIGELOW, P.J.
In October 2009, the trial court issued a restraining order against respondent and appellant Anousheh Ashouri, requiring her to stay away from petitioner and respondent Hami Golbar and his roommate. The restraining order expired in October 2010. We dismiss the appeal as moot.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In September 2009, Golbar filed a request for and received a temporary restraining order against Ashouri. At a subsequent October 2, 2009 hearing, Golbar testified that he and Ashouri dated briefly. According to Golbar, after he broke up with Ashouri, she continued staying at his house for a time. Eventually, following a long, heated argument one night, Golbar insisted that Ashouri leave. Golbar testified that Ashouri refused to leave and tried to take the phone away from him when he began to call the police. Ashouri left only after Sara Duncan, Golbar’s roommate and ex-girlfriend, suggested she should leave before the police arrived. According to Golbar, following this altercation, Ashouri repeatedly called him and sent him excessive numbers of text messages. He testified that she might call him 20 to 40 times a day for three days, or send him 60 or 70 texts, until he disabled text messaging on his phone. The telephone calls stopped after Golbar’s temporary restraining order was served on Ashouri, but she e-mailed him and Duncan.
At the October hearing, Ashouri admitted she called Golbar six to seven times a day in the first few days after they broke up, and that she called him three to four times per day in August. She denied that the telephone calls were threatening. She also admitted that she called Golbar repeatedly at the beginning of September after discovering she was pregnant. She testified that she only sent a few texts and one e-mail to Duncan.
The trial court issued a restraining order against Ashouri preventing her from contacting Golbar or Duncan. The order was for one year, to expire on October 2, 2010. On October 16, 2009, Ashouri filed a motion for reconsideration. Ashouri contended the evidence presented at the October 2nd hearing did not support the issuance of a restraining order. She further argued she had new evidence that Duncan had set up false e-mail and social networking accounts in Ashouri’s name, then sent harassing messages to Golbar and others pretending to be Ashouri. The trial court heard and denied Ashouri’s motion for reconsideration in January 2010.
Ashouri has appealed the issuance of the restraining order. However, she concedes in her appellate briefing that the restraining order has already expired. “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.]” (Environmental Charter High School v. Centinela Valley Union High School Dist. (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 139, 144.) There are discretionary exceptions to this rule: “ ‘(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.]” (Ibid.) None of these exceptions applies here.
Golbar has not filed a respondent’s brief but sent this court a letter in which he stated he had no further interest in the matter.
Ashouri contends that we should consider her appeal despite its mootness because the record of the restraining order will remain on her records and may affect her goal of becoming an astronaut. Ashouri offers no legal authority for the proposition that clearing one’s name is an adequate basis for us to exercise our discretion to hear an otherwise moot appeal in a civil context, nor are we aware of any such authority. We have no basis to exercise our discretion to hear this otherwise moot appeal. The general rule applies that we do not render opinions “ ‘ “ ‘upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or... declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it. It necessarily follows that when, pending an appeal from the judgment of a lower court, and without any fault of the defendant, an event occurs which renders it impossible for this court, if it should decide the case in favor of the plaintiff, to grant him any effectual relief whatever, the court will not proceed to a formal judgment, but will dismiss the appeal.’ ” [Citations.]’ ” (Giles v. Horn (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 206, 226-227.)
Even if we were to reach the merits of the issue, we would find the restraining order was appropriately issued. As we noted at the outset, Golbar testified that Ashouri refused to leave his home until she found out the police were en route. Further, that Ashouri sometimes called him 20 to 40 times a day, or sent him 60 or 70 texts, until he disabled text messaging on his phone.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed. Appellant is to bear her own costs on appeal.
We concur: RUBIN, J., GRIMES, J.