Singh v. Bains CA5

Filed 3/10/22 Singh v. Bains CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

DALJIT SINGH, F082506 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 20CECG01693) v.

GURPAUL SINGH BAINS, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Mark E. Cullers, Judge. Gurpaul Singh Bains, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. John L. Migliazzo for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Peña, Acting P.J., Smith, J. and DeSantos, J.

Defendant Gurpaul Singh Bains appeals from a civil harassment restraining order (CHRO) protecting plaintiff Daljit Singh (defendant’s former employer) and plaintiff’s wife and son. Defendant also challenges the denial of his peremptory challenge to the trial judge. Plaintiff requests this court take judicial notice of a second CHRO issued against defendant and contends this appeal is moot because defendant did not appeal a second CHRO. Plaintiff also contends the peremptory challenge was properly denied as untimely. We grant plaintiff’s request for judicial notice of the second CHRO. We conclude the appeal of the first CHRO is moot because reversing that CHRO would not give defendant any practical, effective relief because he would still be subject to the second CHRO, which was not appealed. We therefore dismiss the appeal as moot. MEMORANDUM DECISION1 I. MOOTNESS An appeal becomes moot when an actual controversy that once was ripe no longer exists due to a change in circumstances. (Wilson & Wilson v. City Council of Redwood City (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1559, 1573.) In assessing mootness, “[t]he pivotal question … is … whether the court can grant the plaintiff any effectual relief.” (Id. at p. 1574.) If events have made such relief impracticable, the controversy has become moot. (Ibid.) Plaintiff has requested this court take judicial notice of a second CHRO issued on mandatory Judicial Council form CH-130 in Daljit Singh v. Gurpaul Bains, Fresno County Superior Court, case No. 19CECG00917. We grant this request pursuant to the

1 This matter is proper for disposition by a memorandum opinion in accordance with the California Standards of Judicial Administration, Standard 8.1. (See People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 850–855 [use of memorandum opinions]; Cal. Const., art. VI, § 14 [appellate decisions “shall be in writing with reasons stated”].)