Davenport v. State of California

Filed 7/6/06 Davenport v. State of California CA1/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

Don Davenport appeals after the trial court dismissed his petition for writ of mandate, through which he sought to enjoin or otherwise prevent the sale of two excess parcels of property (properties) owned by the State of California acting by and through the Department of Transportation (state) to the state's former tenant and real party in interest, the Redwood Communication Action Agency (Redwood Agency). Redwood agency, a California not for profit corporation, purchased the properties pursuant to Streets and Highways Code section 118.1. After the trial court had entered judgment against Davenport and prior to Davenport's filing his notice of appeal, state conveyed the properties to Redwood Agency. Subsequently, Davenport appealed and state, California Transportation commission (commission),^[1] and Redwood Agency moved to dismiss based on the appeal being moot. We agree and hereby dismiss this appeal.

BACKGROUND

Davenport filed a petition for mandamus or prohibition and preliminary injunction, seeking to prevent the sale of two parcels of property in Humboldt County. The state owned the properties and was selling them to Redwood Agency pursuant to Streets and Highways Code section 118.1. ^[2] Redwood agency is a California not for profit corporation, which provides services to low and moderate income members of the Humboldt County community. In connection with the petition, Davenport filed and recorded a notice of pendency of action (lis pendens) on the properties, which the court expunged on August 25, 2005. Subsequently, the court granted Davenport a temporary restraining order.^[3]

After briefing and a hearing, the trial court denied Davenport's petition. Judgment of dismissal was entered on January 5, 2006. Notice of entry of judgment was entered on January 17, 2006. Davenport did not seek to stay the effect of the judgment.

State and Redwood Agency closed escrow on the transaction. The deeds of conveyance on the properties were recorded on January 26, 2006.^[4]

Davenport filed a notice of appeal on March 6, 2006.

DISCUSSION

It is undisputed that Davenport filed a petition for writ of mandamus to prevent the state from conveying the properties to Redwood Agency. It is also undisputed that Davenport did not file his notice of appeal from the denial of his writ petition and the judgment dismissing his petition until after the properties had been conveyed to Redwood Agency and the deed duly recorded. Finally, it is also undisputed that Davenport never sought a stay against conveyance of the properties. Since Davenport sought to prevent the sale of the properties that have now been conveyed, the state, Redwood Agency, and commission argue that his appeal is moot and we should therefore dismiss his appeal.

â€