Rinche v. Necib CA1/3

Filed 3/26/26 Rinche v. Necib CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

MARIO ANTONIO RINCHE, Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and Appellant, A174028

v. (Contra Costa County KHALID NECIB, Super. Ct. No. N25-0329) Defendant, Cross-complainant and Respondent.

Mario Antonio Rinche appeals from the trial court’s issuance of a six- month civil harassment restraining order (CHRO) against him. He contends the CHRO was entered due to various procedural and evidentiary errors. We conclude that because the CHRO expired on December 10, 2025, the court did not renew the order, and there is no information that respondent Khalid Necib has sought any further restraining orders against Rinche, the appeal will be dismissed as moot.1

1 On December 15, 2025, Rinche filed a motion to augment the record

with various documents related to other court proceedings. This court previously construed the motion as a request for judicial notice and deferred ruling as to Exhibits A–C. We now deny Rinche’s request as to those exhibits because the records are not required for our disposition of this matter.

MEMORANDUM OPINION2 This dispute appears to stem from conflict between Rinche, a third individual, Frederick Eaton, who Rinche describes as his “ex-romantic partner,” and Necib, who Rinche describes as Eaton’s “new partner.” Background In early 2025, Rinche filed a request for a CHRO against Necib. The court denied this request on March 12, 2025. Rinche sought reconsideration of the order, which was subsequently denied by the court on May 19, 2025. Rinche filed another request for a CHRO in late May, 2025. Necib then filed a cross-petition for a restraining order against Rinche. The court granted Necib’s temporary restraining order (TRO) against Rinche as to Necib and his daughter, but denied the request as to Rinche’s contact with government agencies. The court also denied Rinche’s request for a TRO. On June 10, 2025, the court again denied Rinche’s request for a CHRO and granted Necib a six-month CHRO “with the same terms of the temporary order.” The court denied Rinche’s request to stay enforcement of the CHRO pending this appeal. Rinche subsequently appealed. This court requested the parties provide supplemental briefing on the question of mootness because the CHRO expired on December 10, 2025—five days prior to Rinche filing his opening appellate brief. In response, Rinche filed a supplemental brief alleging the appeal is not moot. Specifically, Rinche asserted (1) meaningful relief is available because the restraining order—although expired—carried “continuing stigma,” (2) short term civil