Carpenter v. Pavich CA2/7

Filed 8/24/15 Carpenter v. Pavich CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN

CHRISTOPHER CARPENTER, B256398

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. YS025884) v.

MICHAEL PAVICH,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, John A. Slawson, Judge. Dismissed.

Long Beach Legal, John C. Feely and Joseph F. Nowicki for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

___________________________________

INTRODUCTION

Michael Pavich appeals from a civil harassment order that temporarily restrained him from harassing, contacting, or going near his nephew, Christopher Carpenter. The order expired while this appeal was pending. We dismiss the appeal as moot.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Carpenter, Pavich’s nephew, lived in a house owned by a trust for which Pavich served as the trustee. A dispute arose over whether Carpenter lawfully resided in the house, and Pavich threatened to evict his nephew. Pavich sent at least three letters threatening to take legal action if Carpenter did not vacate the property. Pavich also changed some of the locks on the house without notifying Carpenter and verbally threatened to remove Carpenter and his belongings if he did not leave. Carpenter filed a request for a temporary civil harassment restraining order against Pavich pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6, and the trial court held a hearing on April 9, 2014. The court issued a one-year restraining order precluding Pavich from harassing or contacting Carpenter and requiring Pavich to stay at least 100 yards from Carpenter and the house except for times when Pavich needed to visit the property as the property manager. The order expired on April 9, 2015, while this appeal was pending. We conclude that Pavich’s appeal is moot.