Filed 5/16/22 Harris v. Coleman CA2/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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(a). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a). |
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
| ALTEASHA HARRIS, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LAQUESHA COLEMAN, Defendant and Appellant. | B307241 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 18CMRO01299)
|
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Armando Duron, Commissioner. Dismissed.
LaQuesha Coleman, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
This is the second appeal in this case. In the first appeal, appellant LaQuesha Coleman appealed from the issuance of a domestic violence restraining order against her in favor of respondent Alteasha Harris, Harris’s husband, and Harris’s two children. (See Harris v. Coleman (Aug. 8, 2019, B291767) [nonpub. opn.] (Harris I).) We affirmed the order because Coleman failed to provide an adequate record affirmatively showing any abuse of discretion. (Ibid.)
In this appeal, Coleman seeks to appeal from a subsequent order denying her application to terminate the domestic violence restraining order. Because the restraining order has now expired, we dismiss Coleman’s appeal as moot.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On August 2, 2018, the trial court issued a three-year domestic violence restraining order against Coleman. In Harris I, supra, B291767, we affirmed the trial court’s order.
On July 7, 2020, Coleman filed an application to terminate or modify the restraining order. The trial court denied her application on August 17, 2020.
On August 18, 2020, Coleman appealed from the trial court’s order denying her application to terminate the restraining order. The restraining order expired on August 2, 2021, before we considered this appeal.
DISCUSSION
Coleman contends the court erred by denying her application to terminate the restraining order issued on August 2, 2018. As discussed above, however, the restraining order has now expired. Where, as here, the relief granted by the superior court is temporal and expires before an appeal can be heard, the appeal is moot. (Environmental Charter High School v. Centinela Valley Union High School Dist. (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 139, 144.) Coleman does not address whether any discretionary exceptions to the rule of mootness apply and has, therefore, forfeited any argument that exceptions apply. (Ibid.) Thus, Coleman’s appeal is moot, and is dismissed on that basis.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed as moot. Coleman is to bear her own costs on appeal.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
CURREY, J.
We concur:
WILLHITE, Acting P.J.
COLLINS, J.
