Hamida v. Page CA4/3

Filed 3/22/24 Hamida v. Page CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

RIDA HAMIDA,

Plaintiff and Appellant, G061935

v. Super. Ct. No. 30-2022-01276435

BOB PAGE, et al., OPINION

Defendants and Respondents.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Nathan R. Scott, Judge. Dismissed. Respondent’s Request for Judicial Notice. Denied. Law Offices of Chad Morgan and Chad D. Morgan, and Law Office of Mark Rosen and Mark S. Rosen, for Plaintiff and Appellant. Leon J. Page, County Counsel, Rebecca S. Leeds and Suzanne E. Shoai, Deputy County Counsel, for Defendants and Respondents.

California Association of Clerks and Elections Officials and California State Association of Counties, as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent Robert Page. * * * Rida Hamida, a prospective candidate for Anaheim City Council in 2022, filed nomination papers around noon on the filing deadline. After respondent Orange County Registrar of Voters Bob Page (Registrar) rejected a certain number of signatures on the nomination papers, respondent Anaheim City Clerk Theresa Bass (Clerk) determined Hamida was not qualified as a candidate because she did not submit 20 valid signatures (Registrar and Clerk, collectively Respondents). Hamida did not submit additional signatures before the deadline, but later submitted affidavits from some of the previous signers declaring they made those rejected signatures. Respondents declined to consider the affidavits or change their decisions. Subsequently, Hamida filed a petition for a writ of mandate requesting the court order her name be placed on the November 8, 2022 ballot. After the trial court denied the petition, Hamida appealed. Because the election has been held, no relief can be granted on Hamida’s petition. Hamida, however, argues her appeal is not moot because it presents “‘an issue of substantial and continuing public interest and is capable of repetition yet evades review.’” We conclude there is no issue of substantial and continuing public interest because Hamida has not shown a trial court may bypass Respondents’ reasonable decisions in reliance on extrinsic evidence never timely submitted to the Registrar. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as moot.1