Russell v. Eytan CA1/2

Filed 9/16/24 Russell v. Eytan CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

JOSHUA MICHAEL RUSSELL, Plaintiff and Respondent, A166635 v. LAURA MEI EYTAN, (Solano County Super. Ct. No. FCS057493) Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Laura Eytan appeals from a civil harassment restraining order issued against her under section 527.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Because the challenged order has expired, we dismiss the appeal as moot. Background Joshua Russell and Laura Eytan are neighbors who disagree as to the location of the boundary between their properties. In December 2021, Russell filed a request for a civil harassment restraining order, alleging that Eytan caused him and his wife stress and loss of sleep by trespassing onto their property; directing profanity toward them; stalking them while filming them with her cell phone camera; emptying cans of spray paint onto their

1 We resolve this case by a memorandum opinion pursuant to

California Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1.

1

property; and constructing barricades of refuse. The trial court issued a temporary restraining order and set a date for a hearing, which eventually took place on July 15, 2022. On that date, after hearing from the parties and reviewing the documents they presented, the court issued a civil harassment restraining order against Eytan. The expiration date shown on the order is July 15, 2024. Eytan filed her opening appellate brief on June 26, 2024, less than three weeks before the order was scheduled to expire. She informed us in a footnote that Russell had served a request to renew the restraining order, which was set for hearing in July 2024. On our own motion, we take judicial notice of the civil minutes of the hearing on Russell’s request, which was held on July 17, 2024. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, subd (d); 459.) The minutes state that the request was denied. In August 2024, Russell informed this court that he had decided not to file a respondent’s brief because the order had expired. Discussion As a general matter, courts decide only “ ‘actual controversies’ ” that will result in a judgment that grants relief to the parties. (Eye Dog Foundation v. State Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind (1967) 67 Cal.2d 536, 541.) An appeal becomes moot, and will generally be dismissed, when, through no fault of the respondent, an event occurs that renders it impossible for the reviewing court to provide the appellant effective relief. (Ibid.) “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.” (Environmental Charter High School v. Centinela Valley Union High School District (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 139, 144.) The civil harassment restraining