Holly Hill Investments v. Flaherty CA2/5

Filed 3/9/22 Holly Hill Investments v. Flaherty CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

HOLLY HILL INVESTMENTS, LLC, B306603

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 19STRO07920) v.

VINCE FLAHERTY,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Lawrence P. Riff, Judge. Dismissed. Vince Flaherty, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. McKenna, Brink, Signorotti and Dominic V. Signorotti for Plaintiff and Respondent. _______________________________

Appellant Vince Flaherty appeals from the trial court’s entry of a workplace violence restraining order. Because the

order has expired and the record does not reflect any request for renewal of the order, we dismiss the appeal as moot. The parties are familiar with the facts and our opinion does not meet the criteria for publication. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.1105(c).) We accordingly resolve the cause before us, consistent with constitutional requirements, via a written opinion with reasons stated. (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 14; Lewis v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1232, 1261–1264 [three-paragraph discussion of issue on appeal satisfies constitutional requirement because “an opinion is not a brief in reply to counsel’s arguments”; “[i]n order to state the reasons, grounds, or principles upon which a decision is based, [an appellate] court need not discuss every case or fact raised by counsel in support of the parties’ positions”].)