Cardona v. Sneddon CA2/6

Filed 1/8/14 Cardona v. Sneddon CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

JOSE N. CARDONA, 2d Civil No. B246082 (Super. Ct. No. 56-2012-00420973- Plaintiff and Respondent, CU-HR-VTA) (Ventura County) v.

KELLY JEAN SNEDDON,

Defendant and Appellant.

Kelly Jean Sneddon appeals from a temporary restraining order (TRO) and permanent restraining order entered against her in a civil harassment proceeding brought by Jose Cardona. The TRO merged into the permanent restraining order, which expired by its own terms on February 7, 2013. Because the order has been extinguished, no appellate relief can be granted. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as moot. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Appellant was in a five-year domestic relationship with one of Cardona's employees, Christopher Drake. After Drake moved out, appellant made more than 15 telephone calls over a two-day period to his place of employment and also to Cardona's wife. Many of the calls were after midnight. Appellant left messages stating that she was trying to get in touch with Drake, that he was a bad person and that she was going to report Cardona to the labor board and the Department of Transportation for illegal

business practices. Cardona fired Drake as a result of the telephone calls, but reinstated him after Drake filed a request for a domestic violence restraining order against appellant. Cardona sought a civil harassment restraining order under Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6 to prevent appellant from harassing him, his wife and adult son. Although appellant stopped calling Cardona after a couple of days, his son saw her near the business premises a few days later. Appellant also contacted the labor board and Department of Transportation to complain about Cardona's business practices. Cardona alleged that appellant was "a very disturbed person," and that his wife could not deal with the harassment due to her serious medical issues. Appellant vigorously disputed the allegations. The trial court granted Cardona's request for a TRO and set the matter for a contested hearing. Appellant was extremely emotional and distraught throughout the proceedings, particularly when Drake was involved. Observing that "normally, these hearings don't get this ballistic," the trial court expressed concern about appellant's mental state. It noted that during one of the earlier hearings, appellant "was very, very emotional, and honestly, I had some real concerns about her mental stability. She didn't handle the situation very well." The trial court found that appellant had not called Cardona since the original two-day incident, but stated that may have been due, in part, to the TRO. Given its perception of appellant's mental state, the court extended the injunction by issuing a permanent restraining order that expired three months later, on February 7, 2013.1 The court remarked: "That will be nine months total. And for me, that should be sufficient for everybody to take a step back." This appeal followed. DISCUSSION