Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Super. Ct. No. BS101629 Edward A. Ferns, Judge. Reversed with directions.
Gipson, Hoffman & Pancione, Kenneth I. Sidle and Corey J. Spivey; Peter Hoffman, in propria persona, for Defendants and Appellants.
Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein & Hilbert and Joshua S. Force; Duane & Morris, Robert J. Zapf and J. Robert Renner for Plaintiff and Respondent.
WILLHITE, Acting P. J.
INTRODUCTION
This appeal arises out of the following events. The plaintiff obtained a judgment against the defendants in Louisiana. The plaintiff then moved the trial court in California to enter judgment on the sister state judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1710.10 et. seq.) The trial court granted the motion. Several months later, the defendants moved to vacate or stay the trial court’s order. The trial court denied that request. This defense appeal is taken from that denial and advances several arguments as to why the trial court erred in denying the motion to stay or vacate California enforcement of the Louisiana judgment. Meanwhile, the Louisiana judgment has been reversed by that state’s appellate court. The appeal is therefore moot. We shall reverse with directions to the trial court to reverse its judgment and dismiss the action without prejudice.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Too Easy Entertainment, LLC sued defendants Seven Arts Pictures Inc., Asylum Productions UK Ltd., and Peter Hoffman in Louisiana. Plaintiff prevailed upon a summary judgment motion, and, on August 12, 2005, obtained a judgment for $1,545,000 plus interest, attorney fees and costs. Defendants filed an appeal in the Louisiana Court of Appeal but posted no undertaking.
In February 2006, plaintiff applied to the Los Angeles Superior Court for an entry of judgment on the Louisiana judgment. In April 2006, the trial court granted the application. Two months later, defendants moved to vacate or stay that order. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1710.40 & 1710.50.) Defendants urged that there were “substantial errors” in the Louisiana judgment but never offered to post an undertaking in California. Plaintiff opposed defendants’ motion on multiple grounds.
Following a hearing, the trial court denied the motion in a detailed minute order. In July 2006, defendants filed a timely notice of appeal.
Thereafter, the Louisiana appellate court reversed the grant of summary judgment in plaintiff’s favor and remanded the case to the Louisiana trial court for further proceedings. Plaintiff decided not to seek further appellate review in Louisiana but, instead, to set the matter for trial.
Plaintiff’s June 29, 2007 request that we take judicial notice of the opinions of the Louisiana appellate court is granted.
In a September 20, 2006 opinion, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment. Following the grant of rehearing, the appellate court, on March 7, 2007, affirmed its earlier opinion.
Plaintiff then offered to stipulate to dismiss the instant appeal without prejudice and to vacate and dismiss without prejudice the judgment entered by the trial court upon the Louisiana judgment. Defendants rejected the proposed stipulation.
The parties filed their briefs in this appeal addressing, among other things, whether the appeal is moot.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff correctly contends the appeal is moot. The foundation of the California trial court’s judgment was the Louisiana judgment, a judgment which has since been reversed. Hence, whether the trial court was correct when it denied defendants’ motion to stay or vacate its judgment is an academic or moot question. “It is well settled that an appellate court will decide only actual controversies. Consistent therewith, it has been said that an action which originally was based upon a justiciable controversy cannot be maintained on appeal if the questions raised therein have become moot by subsequent acts or events.” (Finnie v. Town of Tiburon (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 1, 10.)
Defendants’ contrary position is not persuasive. Simply stated, this appeal does not present the well-recognized exception to the rule precluding consideration of a moot issue: the “pending case poses an issue of broad public interest that is likely to recur.” (In re William M. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 16, 23.) And defendants’ argument that there is “a substantial likelihood” that the issues raised in this appeal will arise again is unsupported speculation. It is based upon their groundless assertion that “the Louisiana Action has been remanded to this same highly prejudiced judge who is fully capable of forcing an early unfair trial filled with more obviously incorrect rulings in favor of [plaintiff], which will result in yet another appeal in Louisiana and further improper enforcement attempts in California.”
Ordinarily, when a case becomes moot while on appeal, the cause is dismissed. However, such an involuntary dismissal of the appeal operates as an affirmance of the trial court’s judgment. That result would not be proper here because the predicate of the trial court’s judgment (an enforceable Louisiana judgment) no longer exists. Therefore, we shall reverse with directions to the trial court to reverse its judgment without prejudice. “This approach disposes of the case, not merely the proceeding that brought it to the appellate court. [Citation.]” (County of Fresno v. Shelton (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 996, 1005.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is reversed with directions to dismiss the action without prejudice. The parties to bear their own costs on appeal.
We concur:
MANELLA, J., SUZUKAWA, J.