Morris v. Whitsitt CA3

Filed 8/30/21 Morris v. Whitsitt CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) ----

CHLOE MORRIS, C090783

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. STKCVUCH20190012714) v.

WILLIAM JOEL WHITSITT,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant William Joel Whitsitt appeals from a civil harassment restraining order that temporarily restrained him from harassing or contacting respondent Chloe Morris for one year. The restraining order expired by its own terms in October 2020. Because the restraining order is no longer in effect, we dismiss the appeal as moot. I. BACKGROUND While not entirely clear from the record or defendant’s brief, as far as we can discern, some sort of dispute involving a dog arose between Morris, her parents, and defendant while Morris and defendant both attended bible college at Christian Life

1

college. Defendant wrote a letter, which he characterized as an apology for the dog matter, and asked Morris to convey the message to her parents. Sometime in 2019, Morris filed for a civil harassment restraining order against defendant pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6 in case No. STKCVUCH20190012714; Morris apparently attached a letter that defendant had written her as an exhibit to the request.1 Although defendant’s response is included in the record, Morris’s initial restraining order request and any attachments are not. After a hearing on October 10, 2019, before judicial officer Jayne Lee,2 in which both Morris and defendant testified, Lee granted Morris a one-year restraining order against defendant. Defendant was prohibited from “[h]arass[ing], intimidat[ing], molest[ing], attack[ing], strik[ing], stalk[ing], threaten[ing], assault[ing] (sexually or otherwise), hit[ting], abus[ing], destroy[ing] personal property of, or disturb[ing] the peace of [Morris].” He was also prohibited from “[c]ontact[ing] [Morris], either directly or indirectly, in any way, including, but not limited to, in person, by telephone, in writing, by public or private mail, by interoffice mail, by e-mail, by text message, by fax, or by other electronic means.” The restraining order was for conduct only and did not require defendant to stay any specific distance away from Morris. The restraining order expired by its own terms on October 10, 2020. Defendant timely appealed the restraining order in case No. STKCVUCH20190012714.3 As noted above, the appellate record omits several key documents, such as Morris’s request for the restraining order, and does not include a