Opinion
A167888
07-23-2024
ELIZABETH KARNAZES, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. THE LAURIEDALE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, Defendant and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
(San Francisco City &County Super. Ct. No. CGC-17-557900)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Rodriguez, J.
In 2017, Elizabeth Karnazes sued The Lauriedale Homeowners Association, alleging she tripped on a defective sidewalk and suffered injuries. In 2018, the superior court issued an order to show cause (OSC) why the matter should not be dismissed for failure to file a proof of service or to enter default. In the ensuing years, the court repeatedly continued the OSC regarding dismissal. An OSC issued in July 2022 noted mandatory dismissal of the action was impending and set a hearing for February 28. (§§ 583.310 [action must be brought to trial within five years of its commencement], 583.360 [action must be dismissed for failure to timely bring it to trial].) Four days before the OSC hearing, Karnazes filed a response, asked the court to vacate the hearing, and requested a case management conference on July 26.
We resolve this case by memorandum opinion (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1), reciting only those facts necessary to do so. (People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 851.) In 2023, we declared Karnazes a vexatious litigant pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 391. (Karnazes v. The Lauriedale Homeowners Assn. (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 275, 278; undesignated statutory references are to this code.) That determination does not affect this matter, which was already pending. Finally, unless otherwise indicated, all dates refer to 2023.
After the February 28 OSC hearing, the superior court issued an order dismissing the action under sections 583.310 and 583.360. But the court's minute order also stated that the court set aside its dismissal the same day and reset the hearing to July 25. Moreover, on March 1, the court issued a new OSC regarding dismissal and set a July 25 hearing. Before the July 25 hearing, Karnazes filed a notice of appeal, purporting to appeal from the February 28 dismissal order.
We dismiss the appeal as moot. (People v. Rish (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1370, 1380.)"' "[A]n action that originally was based on a justiciable controversy cannot be maintained on appeal if all the questions have become moot by subsequent acts or events. A reversal in such a case would be without practical effect, and the appeal will therefore be dismissed." '" (People v. DeLong (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 482, 486.) Here, Karnazes has already obtained the relief she seeks because the superior court set aside the dismissal order. (Rish, at p. 1380.) Indeed, she has continued to litigate the case - filing case management statements on October 26, 2023, and January 24, 2024. In other words, the dismissal was vacated, the case remains active, and litigation is ongoing. Karnazes does not persuade us that there is any other basis on which we should retain this appeal or on which we can grant her further relief.
We granted The Lauriedale Homeowners Association's unopposed motion to augment the record on appeal with the two case management statements and an updated trial court register of actions. The register of action reflects the July 25 hearing date was vacated due to this appeal.
Karnazes requested oral argument. A party has the right to oral argument in any appeal"' "considered on the merits and decided by a written opinion." '" (Lewis v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1232, 1254.) Because we dismiss this matter without reaching the merits, the parties have no right to oral argument; we conclude it is unnecessary given our dismissal of the appeal as moot.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed as moot. No costs are awarded. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(5).)
WE CONCUR: Fujisaki, Acting P. J. Petrou, J.