Spellman v. Daniel CA4/2

Filed 6/11/15 Spellman v. Daniel CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

ROSE SPELLMAN,

Plaintiff and Respondent, E060026

v. (Super.Ct.No. CIVRS1105739)

NATHAN G. DANIEL, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Joseph R. Brisco,

Judge. Dismissed.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Law Offices of Joseph W. Singleton and Joseph W. Singleton for Defendant and

Appellant.

Defendant and appellant Nathan Daniel appeals from the trial court’s denial of his

motion to terminate the restraining order issued against him, which had been requested by

his former attorney, plaintiff and respondent Rose Spellman. The restraining order at

1

issue, however, expired on its own terms at midnight on July 20, 2014. As such,

defendant’s appeal is moot, and will be dismissed on that basis.1

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND2