Sanders-Toledo v. MacFarland CA4/1

Filed 2/26/26 Sanders-Toledo v. MacFarland CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

TAMMY SANDERS-TOLEDO, D085752

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. 24HR028389C)

EMMA MACFARLAND,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Blair Soper, Judge. Dismissed. Emma MacFarland, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Emma MacFarland appeals from a one-year civil harassment restraining order that prevented her from harassing or contacting her neighbor, Tammy Sanders-Toledo, as well as Sanders-Toledo’s husband and son. The restraining order expired on February 9, 2026. Because the restraining order is no longer in effect and no discretionary exception to the mootness doctrine applies, we dismiss the appeal as moot.

I. MacFarland and Sanders-Toledo are neighbors. In December 2024, Sanders-Toledo obtained a temporary restraining order protecting her, her husband, and her son from any harassment or contact by MacFarland. MacFarland filed a response, supported with exhibits and a declaration, contesting the veracity of Sanders-Toledo’s allegations of harassment. The trial court held a hearing on February 10, 2025. During the hearing, multiple witnesses testified, including the parties. The court found Sanders-Toledo carried her burden of proof and issued a civil harassment restraining order protecting Sanders-Toledo, her husband, and her son from any harassment or contact by MacFarland. The restraining order expired at midnight on February 9, 2026. II. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6, subdivision (a)(1), a “person who has suffered harassment” “may seek a temporary restraining order and an order after hearing prohibiting harassment.” MacFarland claims the restraining order must be reversed because her alleged conduct “fails to meet the statutory requirements for harassment” under section 527.6. Because we conclude the appeal is moot, however, we need not address this argument. “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 Dist. (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 139, 144.) Such an appeal should be dismissed unless one of the discretionary exceptions to the mootness doctrine applies: “(1) when the case presents an issue of broad public interest that is