Filed 6/27/13 Washington v. Horvath CA4/1 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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. 

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

DIVISION ONE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

CHRISTOPHER WASHINGTON, 

 Plaintiff and Respondent, 

 v. 

HELEN HORVATH, 

 Defendant and Appellant. 

D061068 

(Super. Ct. No. 37-2009-00070679- 

 CU-HR-EC) 

 APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Fredrick 

Mandabach, Retired, Judge. Dismissed. 

 

 Helen Horvath, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. 

Defendant and appellant Helen Horvath, who is self-represented, purports to 

appeal the superior court's denial of her motion to modify a restraining order enjoining 

her from harassing plaintiff and respondent Christopher Washington. But that order is 

not appealable. Further, the record reflects the restraining order, by its terms, has 
2 

expired. Accordingly, this court cannot provide effective relief from the order, and the 

appeal is dismissed. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

 In November 2009, Washington filed a request under Code of Civil Procedure,1

sections 527.6 and 527.9 for a court order to stop Horvath's harassment of himself, his 

wife and his daughter. Horvath noted that approximately one year earlier the court had 

denied his previous request for such an order, but admonished Horvath to cease further 

contact with him. Washington claimed Horvath's subsequent "nearly two year course of 

harassing conduct, despite being told to stop by [himself] and a judge, and being 

contacted by law enforcement, has risen to the level of being threatening." The court 

issued a temporary restraining order and set a hearing for December 9, 2009. 

Horvath filed an answer to Washington's request for orders to stop harassment, 

generally denying Washington's claims, and alleging that, in fact, she had been harassed 

and endangered by Washington and his wife. Following a hearing, the court issued a 

restraining order which expired on December 8, 2012. 

Horvath unsuccessfully moved to set aside the restraining order She later sought 

reconsideration of that ruling, which the trial court decided it lacked jurisdiction to 

address because Horvath had separately filed an appeal in this court. 

 

1 All statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure. 
3 

 In April 2011, Horvath again moved to set aside the restraining order, and in June 

2011 she amended her motion, seeking to terminate the restraining order under section 

533. 

 On October 14, 2011, the court responded to Horvath's new motions by first 

summarizing the procedural history of the case: "Following the issuance of a restraining 

order . . . [on December 9, 2009, Horvath] filed a motion pursuant to [section] 1008. 

That motion was heard and denied . . . . [Horvath] then appealed the denial. This appeal 

was dismissed by [the Court of Appeal] for failure to timely designate the record. Now 

this same restraining order is the subject of two new motions" under sections 1008, 

subdivision (b) and 533. The trial court denied the motions, ruling the parties had 

presented no argument that the law upon which the restraining order was granted had 

changed, and no basis existed for setting aside the restraining order because Horvath had 

not proved there was new evidence which she could not, with reasonable diligence, have 

discovered and produced at the hearing. 

DISCUSSION 

Horvath contends "the trial court erred on multiple levels during multiple hearings 

over the life of the [restraining order]." Washington did not file a reply brief in this 

appeal. 

Under the authority of our previous cases, we dismiss this appeal on grounds the 

court's denial of the motion for reconsideration is not an appealable order. (§§ 1008, 

subd. (b), 533; Annette F. v. Sharon S. (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1448, 1458-1459; Tate v. 

Wilburn (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 150, 156; 160.) 
4 

An alternative ground for dismissing Horvath's appeal regarding the court's 

December 9, 2009 restraining order is that it expired on December 8, 2012. Accordingly, 

this court cannot provide effective relief from that expired order. (Santa Monica 

Baykeeper v. City of Malibu (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 1538, 1547.) A court has 

discretionary authority to decide moot issues: "(1) when the case presents an issue of 

broad public interest that is likely to recur [citation]; (2) when there may be a recurrence 

of the controversy between the parties [citation]; and (3) when a material question 

remains for the court's determination." (Id. at p. 1548.) Horvath has not shown that this 

case falls within these discretionary exceptions. 

DISPOSITION 

The appeal is dismissed. No costs are awarded on appeal. 

 

O'ROURKE, J. 

WE CONCUR: 

 McCONNELL, P. J. 

 McINTYRE, J.