1

Filed 9/16/24 Russell v. Eytan CA1/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or 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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

JOSHUA MICHAEL RUSSELL,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

LAURA MEI EYTAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

 A166635

 (Solano County

 Super. Ct. No. FCS057493)

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

Laura Eytan appeals from a civil harassment restraining order issued 

against her under section 527.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Because the 

challenged order has expired, we dismiss the appeal as moot.

Background

Joshua Russell and Laura Eytan are neighbors who disagree as to the 

location of the boundary between their properties. In December 2021, 

Russell filed a request for a civil harassment restraining order, alleging that 

Eytan caused him and his wife stress and loss of sleep by trespassing onto 

their property; directing profanity toward them; stalking them while filming 

them with her cell phone camera; emptying cans of spray paint onto their

1 We resolve this case by a memorandum opinion pursuant to 

California Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1.
2

property; and constructing barricades of refuse. The trial court issued a 

temporary restraining order and set a date for a hearing, which eventually 

took place on July 15, 2022. 

On that date, after hearing from the parties and reviewing the

documents they presented, the court issued a civil harassment restraining 

order against Eytan. The expiration date shown on the order is July 15, 

2024. 

Eytan filed her opening appellate brief on June 26, 2024, less than 

three weeks before the order was scheduled to expire. She informed us in a 

footnote that Russell had served a request to renew the restraining order, 

which was set for hearing in July 2024. 

On our own motion, we take judicial notice of the civil minutes of the 

hearing on Russell’s request, which was held on July 17, 2024. (Evid. Code, 

§§ 452, subd (d); 459.) The minutes state that the request was denied. 

In August 2024, Russell informed this court that he had decided not to 

file a respondent’s brief because the order had expired. 

Discussion

As a general matter, courts decide only “ ‘actual controversies’ ” that 

will result in a judgment that grants relief to the parties. (Eye Dog 

Foundation v. State Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind (1967) 67 Cal.2d 536, 

541.) An appeal becomes moot, and will generally be dismissed, when, 

through no fault of the respondent, an event occurs that renders it impossible 

for the reviewing court to provide the appellant effective relief. (Ibid.) “If 

relief granted by the trial court is temporal, and if the relief granted expires 

before an appeal can be heard, then an appeal by the adverse party is moot.” 

(Environmental Charter High School v. Centinela Valley Union High School 

District (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 139, 144.) The civil harassment restraining 
3

order at issue here expired without being renewed, and the appeal is 

therefore moot and subject to dismissal. (Cf. Harris v. Stampolis (2016) 248 

Cal.App.4th 484, 495-496 [appeal from expired civil harassment restraining 

order was not moot because order had been renewed].)

In the footnote informing us of Russell’s request to renew the 

restraining order, Eytan acknowledged that the order from which she 

appealed was about to expire and asked that we nevertheless reverse it “to 

address” Russell’s then-pending request to renew it and “to preserve her 

reputation as reflected in public records.” We interpret this as a request to 

exercise our discretion to reach the merits of the appeal even though it is 

moot. (See Cucamongans United for Reasonable Expansion v. City of Rancho 

Cucamonga (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 473, 479-480 [identifying discretionary 

exceptions to the mootness doctrine].) We decline to do so.

Review on the merits cannot “address” Russell’s request to renew the 

order, because his request to renew has been denied. We need not consider 

Eytan’s request that we reach the merits “to preserve her reputation.” Eytan

raises the issue only in a footnote, which is “not the appropriate vehicle for 

stating contentions on appeal.” (Sabi v. Sterling (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 916, 

947.) Further, she does not articulate any facts indicating that the expired 

order has had or will have any effect on her reputation, and she presents no 

legal argument or authority to support her request. (Allen v. City of 

Sacramento (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 41, 52 [“[w]hen legal argument with 

citation to authority is not furnished on a particular point, we may treat the 

point as forfeited and pass it without consideration”].) Because we decline to 

reach the merits, we shall dismiss the appeal as moot.2 

2 Appellant requested oral argument in response to a notice sent by the 

court’s clerk as a matter of course when the appeal was fully briefed. A party 
4

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed as moot. Respondent shall recover any costs 

on appeal.

has the right to oral argument in any appeal “ ‘considered on the merits and 

decided by a written opinion.’ ” (Moles v. Regents of University of California 

(1982) 32 Cal.3d 867, 871, italics added; accord, Lewis v. Superior Court 

(1999) 19 Cal.4th 1232, 1254-1255.) Because we dismiss the appeal without 

reaching the merits, appellant has no right to oral argument, which we find 

in this instance to be unnecessary to our dismissal of the appeal as moot.
5

_________________________

Miller, J.

WE CONCUR:

_________________________

Richman, Acting P.J.

_________________________

Desautels, J.

A166635, Russell v. Eytan