Severson & Werson, A Professional Corp. v. Sepehry-Fard CA6

Filed 4/26/22 Severson & Werson, A Professional Corp. v. Sepehry-Fard CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

SEVERSON & WERSON, A H047527 PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. 17CH007672) Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

FAREED SEPEHRY-FARD,

Defendant and Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Appellant Fareed Sepehry-Fard seeks review of a workplace violence restraining order issued against him in favor of several employees of respondent Severson & Werson, a Professional Corporation (Severson). After briefing in this appeal was complete, Severson elected to vacate the restraining order and dismiss the underlying action. As the appeal is now moot, and this court cannot render any effectual relief on appeal, we will grant Severson’s motion to dismiss the appeal.

1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion pursuant to Section 8.1, California Standards of Judicial Administration. (See People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 853-855.)

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND2 Severson initially obtained a restraining order against Sepehry-Fard in September 2017; this court reversed that order in 2019 in appeal number H045161, on the grounds Sepehry-Fard did not receive proper notice prior to the hearing. (Severson & Werson, P.C. v. Sepehry-Fard (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 938, 942 (Severson & Werson).)3 After this court issued its opinion, but before it issued the remittitur, Severson filed a new petition for a workplace violence restraining order, seeking protection for all of its employees, including the same four specifically named employees included in the prior order. Following a hearing, at which Sepehry-Fard failed to appear, the trial court granted a three-year restraining order on September 17, 2019, expiring September 17, 2022. On November 7, 2019, Sepehry-Fard timely filed notice of the instant appeal from the September 2019 restraining order. In June 2021, Sepehry-Fard filed a motion for summary reversal, arguing that the September 2019 order was void as it was issued before this court issued the remittitur in appeal number H045161. This court deferred ruling on the motion for consideration with the appeal. After the appeal was fully briefed, Severson filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as moot, contending that three of the four employees specifically protected by the restraining order no longer worked for the firm, and the fourth employee no longer worked on matters involving Sepehry-Fard, such that the restraining order was no longer needed. Severson had not asked the trial court to vacate the order, because of the