Weissberg v. Peinado CA1/1

Filed 5/14/25 Weissberg v. Peinado CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

STEPHEN WEISSBERG, Plaintiff and Appellant, A170372 v. (San Francisco City & County RENE PEINADO, Super. Ct. No. CGC-99-304332) Defendant and Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 This is the second of two appeals arising from an order directing the sale of Rene Peinado’s home to pay a money judgment owed to Stephen Weissberg. (Code Civ. Proc., § 704.760.) In the first appeal, we reversed the sale order. (Weissberg v. Peinado (Apr. 4, 2025, A169780) [nonpub. opn.] (Weissberg I).) We then advised the parties of our intent to dismiss as moot this second appeal, in which Weissberg challenges an order setting the amount of the bond Peinado filed to stay enforcement of the sale order pending the first appeal. After Weissberg objected to a dismissal based on mootness, we ordered supplemental briefing on the issue.

We resolve this appeal by a memorandum opinion providing a limited 1

factual summary (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1) because our opinion is nonpublished and the parties know, or should know, “the facts of the case and its procedural history.” (People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 851.)

“[A]n appeal is moot if ‘ “the occurrence of events renders it impossible for the appellate court to grant appellant any effective relief.” ’ ” (Lockaway Storage v. County of Alameda (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 161, 175.) Weissberg concedes his appeal is moot but asks us to decide it anyway, mainly on the theory that it raises an issue of broad public importance capable of repetition in a way that evades appellate review. (People v. McCray (2023) 98 Cal.App.5th 260, 267.)2 While we do have discretion to decide a moot appeal in such a case (ibid.), the default rule is to dismiss moot appeals to avoid diverting scarce judicial resources from the resolution of live controversies to the issuance of advisory opinions. (Eye Dog Foundation v. State Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind (1967) 67 Cal.2d 536, 541.) Weissberg has not persuaded us that this appeal comes within the “evading review” exception to that rule. That exception applies if an issue of broad public importance arises in a setting that recurrently moots appeals raising the issue. (See In re D.P., supra, 14 Cal.5th at pp. 283–287 [noting changed circumstances often moot dependency appeals, yet rulings can cause stigma or collateral consequences]; Conservatorship of Wendland (2001) 26 Cal.4th 519, 523–524 [considering appeal, mooted by death of conservatee, regarding standard for conservator’s decision to withhold life support, which tends to evade review given affected persons’ poor health]; Thompson v. Department of Corrections (2001) 25 Cal.4th 117, 122 [considering appeal, mooted by appellant’s execution, regarding how close to time of execution spiritual adviser can stay with prisoner]; Conservatorship of Susan T. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1005, 1011