Neff v. DeNoce CA2/4

Filed 9/18/14 Neff v. DeNoce CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

RONALD A. NEFF, B252039

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. LS020957) v.

DOUGLAS J. DENOCE,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, James A. Steele, Judge. Appeal dismissed as moot. Douglas J. DeNoce, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION Defendant and appellant Douglas DeNoce appeals from an order denying a motion to dissolve a temporary restraining order (TRO) obtained by plaintiff and

respondent Ronald Neff. Because the order from which DeNoce appeals extended the TRO only to February 21, 2014, a date which passed over six months ago, the instant appeal is moot, and accordingly, is dismissed.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1 Neff filed a request for an order to stop civil harassment by DeNoce pursuant to section 527.6,2 along with an application for a TRO. Neff contended that DeNoce had stalked and harassed him. On December 13, 2010, the court granted the TRO, and has since renewed and modified it several times. On December 22, 2010, DeNoce filed a special motion to strike Neff’s petition pursuant to section 425.16, alleging that the true purpose of Neff’s petition seeking an injunction against harassment was to prevent DeNoce from prosecuting his various civil actions against Neff. The trial court denied DeNoce’s anti-SLAPP motion, and we affirmed the order on the ground that DeNoce failed to show that the challenged cause of action arose from protected activity. DeNoce subsequently filed a renewed motion to strike pursuant to section 425.16, which was not successful. On December 11, 2013, we dismissed DeNoce’s appeal from the trial court’s decision on the grounds that (1) DeNoce failed to obtain and include an appealable order in the record, and (2) an order denying a renewed motion pursuant to section 1008, subdivision (b) is not appealable.