From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ledesma v. Thi Ho

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE
Jan 12, 2012
B229110 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 12, 2012)

Opinion

B229110

01-12-2012

CECILIA LEDESMA, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. THI HO, Defendant and Appellant.

Thi Ho, in pro per., for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VS021085)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Brian F. Gasdia, Judge. Dismissed.

Thi Ho, in pro per., for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant and appellant Thi Ho (Ho), in propria persona, appeals a restraining order enjoining her from harassing plaintiff and respondent Cecilia Ledesma (Ledesma).

The record reflects the restraining order, by its terms, has expired.

" 'An appeal should be dismissed as moot when the occurrence of events renders it impossible for the appellate court to grant appellant any effective relief.' " (Santa Monica Baykeeper v. City of Malibu (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 1538, 1547.) Because the restraining order already has expired, this court cannot provide effective relief from the order. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as moot.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1. Pertinent proceedings.

Ledesma rented a room in Ho's house for $450 per month.

On October 18, 2010, Ledesma filed an application for a temporary restraining order (TRO) against Ho. Ledesma alleged she rented a room from Ho for her and her child, and that Ho had been harassing them. Ledesma's application was set for a hearing date of November 15, 2010.

On October 21, 2010, Ho filed an answer to Ledesma's request for an order to stop harassment. Ho also filed a motion to sanction Ledesma and to dismiss Ledesma's application for a TRO.

On October 28, 2010, Ho filed her own application for a restraining order against Ledesma. The hearing on Ho's application was scheduled for November 19, 2010, four days after the hearing on Ledesma's application.

On November 15, 2010, the initial application by Ledesma (No. VS021085) came on for hearing. The parties were sworn and testified.

At the hearing, Ledesma stated she was in the process of moving out of the house. The trial court asked Ho, "why don't you leave her alone until she moves out?" Ho responded, "I leave her alone. But she filed a restraining order against me, so I have to be here."

The trial court ruled there "is a related case filed under Case VS021125 set for hearing on 11/19/10 in Department H. By agreement of the parties matter is advanced to today and heard with this case. [¶] The court grants mutual non CLETS restraining orders as to each of the parties for a period of one year. Said orders shall expire on 11/15/11. [¶]An order after hearing is signed and filed this date." (Italics added.)

Two days later, on November 17, 2010, Ho, in propria persona, filed notice of appeal from the one-year restraining order which was issued on November 15, 2010.

An order granting a restraining order is appealable. (Code Civ. Proc., § 904.1, subd. (a)(6).)

2. Subsequent proceedings.

On November 16, 2010, Ledesma filed another application for a TRO. Ledesma alleged another order was needed because Ho had violated the November 15, 2010 order. A hearing in the matter was scheduled for December 7, 2010.

On November 29, 2010, Ho filed an answer stating she did not agree to the requested order. Ho also filed a federal lawsuit against Ledesma.

On December 7, 2010, the trial court heard the matter and issued another restraining order after hearing. The December 7, 2010 restraining order had an expiration date of January 31, 2011.

The December 7, 2010 restraining order, which expired January 31, 2011, is not the subject of this appeal. The instant notice of appeal refers solely to the November 15, 2010 restraining order, which also has expired.
--------

CONTENTIONS

Ho contends, in substance, the trial court erred in granting a restraining order against her because there was no credible threat of harassment. Ho asserts "the issues are straight forwarded and well founded in law, and thus oral argument would not be helpful."

DISCUSSION

1. The appeal from the November 15, 2010 restraining order must be dismissed as moot.

As indicated, the notice of appeal filed November 17, 2010 specified the November 15, 2010 restraining order. Said restraining order specified its duration was one year and would expire on November 15, 2011.

Because the restraining order in issue already has expired, this court cannot provide effective relief from the order. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as moot. (Santa Monica Baykeeper v. City of Malibu, supra, 193 Cal.App.4th at p. 1547.)

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed as moot. No costs are awarded.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

KLEIN, P. J.

We concur:

CROSKEY, J.

KITCHING, J.


Summaries of

Ledesma v. Thi Ho

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE
Jan 12, 2012
B229110 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 12, 2012)
Case details for

Ledesma v. Thi Ho

Case Details

Full title:CECILIA LEDESMA, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. THI HO, Defendant and…

Court:COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE

Date published: Jan 12, 2012

Citations

B229110 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 12, 2012)