Filed 11/21/23 Campos v. Bonta 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

MAURO CAMPOS et al.,

Plaintiffs and Respondents,

v.

ROB BONTA, as Attorney General, etc. 

et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

 D081134

 (Super. Ct. No. 37-2020-

00030178-CU-MC-CTL)

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

John S. Meyer, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Thomas S. Patterson, Assistant Attorney 

General, Mark Beckington, and Megan A.S. Richards, Deputy Attorneys

General, for Defendants and Appellants.

Benbrook Law Group, Bradley A. Benbrook and Stephen M. Duvernay, 

for Plaintiffs and Respondents.

The California Department of Justice, the Attorney General of 

California, and the Director of the Bureau of Firearms (collectively, the 

Department) appeal from the trial court’s judgment granting a writ petition
2

brought by Mauro Campos and other individuals and organizations 

(collectively, Campos). In the petition, Campos claimed that the Department 

used the COVID-19 pandemic as an opportunity to undermine and restrict 

access to firearms by delaying purchases beyond what was authorized by law. 

The petition sought to require the Department to complete all background 

checks on applications to purchase a firearm within the 10-day waiting 

period described in Penal Code1 sections 26815 and 27540, unless there is a 

statutory basis for the delay. (§ 28220, subd. (f)(1)(A).) In granting the 

petition, the trial court directed the Department to cease its purported policy 

and practice of delaying firearm transactions. 

In its appeal, the Department argues that the petition should have 

been dismissed as moot because the delays occurred for only three months in 

2020 due to a confluence of extraordinary events at the beginning of the 

pandemic, and there were no further delays in firearms transactions by the 

time Campos filed the petition. The Department also contends we should not 

exercise our discretion to decide the moot issue because these unusual events 

are unlikely to recur. We agree that the petition was already moot when 

filed, and that the circumstances here do not warrant invoking any 

discretionary exception to the mootness doctrine. Accordingly, we reverse the 

court’s judgment and remand with directions to dismiss the petition as moot. 

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise 

indicated.
3

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Firearms Background Check

1. Application and Automated Initial Review

California imposes a 10-day waiting period on most firearm purchases

so that the Department can conduct a background check and notify dealers if 

the prospective buyer is prohibited from purchasing a firearm. (§§ 26815, 

subd. (a), 27540, subd. (a).) Dealers use a computerized verification system to 

submit firearm applications to the Department. Upon submission, the 

Department “examine[s] its records, as well as those records that it is 

authorized to request” to determine whether the buyer purchased a firearm

in the previous 30 days or is otherwise prohibited from possessing a firearm. 

(§ 28220, subd. (a).) Throughout the review, the Department communicates 

with dealers through the computerized verification system. (See Cal. Code 

Regs., tit. 11, § 4230, subd. (b).) 

The Department’s process for completing the background check starts 

with an automated screening, in which the computerized verification system

compares the applicant’s information against Department of Motor Vehicle

records and sends inquiries to various state and federal electronic databases 

based on the applicant’s name and date of birth. (See Silvester v. Harris (9th 

Cir. 2016) 843 F.3d 816, 825 [describing the process].) The computerized 

system compiles matching database entries for further review. The 

application is approved automatically if there are no matches or no

disqualifying information. (Ibid.) About 14 percent of all applications are 

approved automatically. 

2. Manual Review by an Analyst

Applications that are not approved automatically are reviewed 

manually by an analyst. An analyst reviews database entries and approves
4

the application if the records indicate the applicant is not prohibited from 

purchasing a firearm. Conversely, the analyst denies the application if the 

records indicate the applicant is prohibited from purchasing a firearm and no 

further research is needed. 

3. Additional Time to Review Some Applications

Occasionally, the Department is unable to determine a person’s 

eligibility during the 10-day waiting period. (See § 28220, subd. (f).) For 

example, there could be partial information in the record that makes it 

difficult to determine whether the buyer has a disqualifying mental health 

hold or criminal conviction. (Ibid.) The Department has up to 30 days to

conduct additional investigation in the following situations:

(i) The purchaser has been taken into custody and placed in a 

facility for mental health treatment or evaluation and may be a 

person described in [the statute] and the [D]epartment is unable 

to ascertain whether the purchaser is a person who is prohibited 

from possessing, receiving, owning, or purchasing a firearm, 

pursuant to [the statute], prior to the conclusion of the waiting 

period . . . .

(ii) The purchaser has been arrested for, or charged with, a 

crime that would make [him or her], if convicted, a person who is 

prohibited by state or federal law from possessing, receiving, 

owning, or purchasing a firearm, and the [D]epartment is unable 

to ascertain whether the purchaser was convicted of that offense 

prior to the conclusion of the waiting period . . . .

(iii) The purchaser may be a person [who has purchased a 

handgun in the prior 30-day period], and the [D]epartment is 

unable to ascertain whether the purchaser, in fact, is a person 

[who has purchased a handgun in the prior 30-day period], prior 

to the conclusion of the waiting period . . . .

(§ 28220, subd. (f)(1)(A).)
5

In these instances, analysts may need to investigate the disposition of a 

criminal arrest or review mental health records to determine whether the 

purchaser is eligible to own and possess a firearm. (See Silvester v. Harris, 

41 F.Supp.3d 927, 951–952.) They may contact listed reporting agencies, 

such as courts, police departments, hospitals, and military tribunals, for 

disposition information regarding noted arrests and mental health holds. If 

the Department is unable to determine the “final disposition of the arrest or 

criminal charge, or the outcome of the mental health treatment or evaluation, 

or the purchaser’s eligibility to purchase a firearm” within 30 days from the 

date of purchase, it must “immediately notify” the dealer that it can transfer 

the firearm. (§ 28220(f)(4).)

B. The Department Temporarily Failed to Complete Timely 

Background Checks at the Beginning of the COVID-19 Pandemic

1. The Department Faced Increased Firearms 

Sales and Office Closures During the Pandemic

There were about 2,000 firearms sales per day at the beginning of 2020, 

which was relatively low compared to the previous year. Sales increased 

dramatically by the middle of March, however, as the COVID-19 pandemic

got underway. On March 17, 18, and 19, for example, the Department 

received over 9,000 applications per day. For the entire month of March

2020, the Department received approximately 140,000 applications,

compared to 85,000 in March 2019. Sales were up through the rest of 2020.

Additionally, in early June 2020, analysts could not process 

applications because some of the Department’s offices were closed due to 

social unrest. At the same time, the Department again received unusually 

high volumes of applications. For example, on the first two days of June, the 

Department received 4,685 applications and 6,683 applications respectively. 
6

2. The Department Temporarily Failed to Process 

Applications Within the 10-Day Waiting Period

During the early months of the pandemic, the Department’s staffing 

and ability to conduct background checks efficiently were hindered by illness, 

quarantines, shutdown orders, school closures and employees taking leaves of 

absence. To counteract staffing issues, the Department redirected staff from 

other units within the Department and instituted a combination of voluntary 

and mandatory overtime, flexible schedules, and alternative schedules. It 

also expedited ongoing hiring efforts to increase the staff available to process 

applications. 

While making these adjustments, the Department continued to process

background checks every day of the pandemic (apart from when its offices 

were closed in early June). Even so, background checks took longer because 

other entities, including the courts and law enforcement agencies, were 

slower to respond to requests for information. Facing the large increase in 

applications, pandemic-related operational and staffing difficulties, and office 

closures, the Department took longer than 10 days to complete the manual 

review of many applications. 

Meanwhile, the Department posted on its website a notice to dealers 

and firearms purchasers that the pandemic could lead background checks to 

take longer than 10 days but that it would continue to strive to complete 

checks as quickly as possible:

“Under Penal Code section 28220(f)(4), the Department . . . has 

up to 30 days to complete background checks on firearms 

purchasers. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, [the Department]

typically completed these checks within [the statute’s] 10-day 

waiting period. COVID-19 protective measures have impacted the 

ability to increase the personnel resources in [the Department] to 

address the recent sustained increase in firearms and 
7

ammunition transactions without compromising the health and 

safety of our employees and the community. As a result, firearms 

and ammunition dealers and purchasers should know that as 

[Department] employees continue to perform the statutorily 

required background checks throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, 

circumstances may compel that background checks are completed 

after the expiration of the 10-day waiting period for firearms 

purchases. [The Department] will continue to strive to provide 

the best service and complete these checks in the shortest time 

possible.”

In March 2020, despite the challenges posed by the pandemic, the 

Department processed more than 103,000 applications, whereas the previous 

March it processed only 69,000 applications. Throughout 2020, the

Department processed significantly more and, in some months, processed

twice as many applications as the prior year. In July 2020, for example, the 

Department processed more than 109,000 applications, whereas it processed 

just over 51,000 applications in July 2019. 

In total, during the first several months of the pandemic, the

Department processed more than 670,000 applications with approximately

one-third of those taking longer than 10 days to process. The first day that 

the Department had applications waiting longer than 10 days to be processed

was April 4, 2020. By July 7, 2020, the Department was again processing all

applications within the 10-day waiting period. During this time, the 

Department took an average of 12.945 days to process each application and

did not take longer than 18 days to process any application. 
8

C. Campos’s Petition

In August 2020, Campos filed a verified petition for writ of mandate 

and complaint for declaratory relief claiming that the Department had used 

the “pandemic as an opportunity to undermine and restrict citizens’ access to 

firearms” in violation of California law. Campos alleged that the state’s

statutory scheme allows the Department to delay a firearm sale “only if a 

background check conducted within the initial 10-day window affirmatively 

shows that the purchaser might be prohibited” from possessing a firearm for 

one of the three reasons given in the statute. 

Campos sought a writ of mandate compelling the Department to 

approve applications that cannot be processed within California’s 10-day 

waiting period (unless they presented one of the situations in which the 

statute allows more time to perform research). Additionally, for approvals 

that were delayed up to 30 days for additional research, Campos wanted the 

Department to immediately notify the dealer and purchaser about the delay. 

Campos also asked for declaratory relief that the Department may not delay 

firearm sales beyond the initial 10-day waiting period except in the 

circumstances set forth in section 28220, subdivision (f)(1)(A).

D. Hearing on the Petition

For the July 2022 hearing, Campos presented the Department’s 

statement on its website regarding delays caused by the pandemic. Campos

argued that the Department claimed that the statute “gives it the authority 

to delay a firearm transaction up to 30 days for any reason (or no reason at 

all).” Campos also presented data describing the number of background 

checks from March to August 2020 that took longer than 10 days. 

The Department presented evidence that it had completed significantly 

more background checks from March to August 2020, and that temporary 
9

delays in processing applications were due to the pandemic and social 

disturbances. Even though the Department redirected personnel to help 

process applications, encouraged overtime, instituted flexible work schedules, 

and expedited ongoing hiring efforts, the volume of applications still exceeded 

the Department’s ability to process them timely for the first few months of 

the pandemic. By July 2020, however, the Department had resolved the 

backlog. The Department has not exceeded the 10-day waiting period again 

since the three-month period in March to July 2020. 

The Department argued that the writ should be denied as moot because 

there was no ongoing delay in processing applications by the time Campos 

filed the petition. Additionally, it argued that it had not abused its discretion 

in continuing to perform background checks after the waiting period and that 

it did not have a policy of delaying background checks beyond the waiting 

period. To the extent the statute set a time limit, the Department argued

that the pandemic created an emergency situation that provided an implied 

exception. It also argued that the clear purpose of the statute would have 

been defeated if applications were approved without a background check. 

The Department warned that the writ would compel the Department, 

in another “unpredictable situation,” to approve sales to individuals who 

might be prohibited from obtaining a firearm. 
10

E. The Trial Court’s Judgment

The trial court found that the matter was not moot because the 

Department “ha[d] not rescinded the challenged policy” and purportedly 

continued to assert that the statute “provides up to 30 days to complete 

firearm background checks for any reason.” The court also found that “the 

challenged policy remained publicly posted” and was “live on the 

[Department’s] website.” The Court determined that the “statutory and 

regulatory scheme” demonstrates the background check is “based on a 10-day 

waiting period.” The court held that the statute allows delay only for the 

three specified reasons: “Had the Legislature wished to create a broader 

allowance for a 30-day delay whenever the DOJ determined additional time 

is needed, it could have done so. It did not.” 

The court declined to find an “implied exception” for the emergency

situation. The court explained that the Department did not argue that it was 

“required to comply with the 10-day period” except for the statute’s “three 

enumerated circumstances,” and yet was unable to do so because of the

“impossible circumstances created by the pandemic.” Instead, the 

Department’s position was that it was allowed “to wait more than 10 days to 

conduct the background checks” when it determined “more time is needed,”

and that it complied with the statute as much as possible “under the 

circumstances.” In concluding that the Department had failed to show the 

applicability of “the implied exception for noncompliance based on 

impossibility,” the court suggested that the Department could avoid 

approving applications without a background check by seeking an emergency 

order from the Governor. 

The court granted the petition and ordered the Department to cease its 

unlawful “policy and practice of delaying firearm transactions beyond the 
11

conclusion of the waiting period” without “a statutory basis to delay the 

transaction.” If the Department could not “determine a purchaser’s eligibility 

to purchase a firearm” after the waiting period, it must “allow delivery of the 

firearm, except where” it is complying with the statute. The court retained 

jurisdiction as necessary to enforce the judgment and the writ of mandate. 

DISCUSSION

The Department argues that because the uncontested facts 

demonstrate the temporary delays in conducting background checks for three 

months in 2020 were due to the pandemic and other unique factors, and are 

no longer occurring, the court erred in refusing to dismiss the petition as 

moot. We agree. 

A. Standard of Review

We review rulings on mootness de novo. (See Robinson v. U-Haul Co. 

of California (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 304, 319 [“Issues of justiciability, such as 

mootness, are generally reviewed de novo.”]; see also K.G. v. Meredith (2012) 

204 Cal.App.4th 164, 174 [“Trial court rulings on mootness are reviewed de 

novo where, as here, they are decided on undisputed facts.”]; Biodiversity 

Legal Foundation v. Badgley (9th Cir. 2002) 309 F.3d 1166, 1173 [appellate 

courts “review mootness, a question of law, de novo”].) To the extent the trial 

court made factual findings, however, we review them for substantial 

evidence. (Boccato v. City of Hermosa Beach (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d 804, 808.)
12

B. The Issue Was Moot Before Campos Filed the Petition

1. The Department Resumed Timely Background Checks in 

July 2020

It is undisputed that, by early July 2020, the Department returned to 

its normal practice of conducting background checks for firearms sales within 

the 10-day waiting period, unless further investigation was permitted under 

the statute. The evidence also shows that the Department’s inability to 

process applications timely from March 2020 to July 2020 was due to 

extraordinary circumstances, including the pandemic, mandated social 

distancing, a large spike in firearms sales, and the Department’s office 

closures due to public disturbances. Because the uncontested evidence 

establishes that the issue was resolved before Campos filed the petition in 

August 2020, the court should have denied the petition as moot.

“An issue becomes moot when some event has occurred which 

‘deprive[s] the controversy of its life.’ ” (Giraldo v. Department of Corrections 

& Rehabilitation (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 231, 257.) “The policy behind a 

mootness dismissal is that ‘courts decide justiciable controversies and will 

normally not render advisory opinions.’ ” (Ibid.)

Campos argues that the Department’s “authority to delay firearms 

beyond the 10-day waiting period for reasons other than [the statute’s] 

enumerated reasons” is still “live.” In agreeing with Campos, the trial court

found the matter was not moot because the Department had “not rescinded 

the challenged policy—i.e., the Department continues to claim that section 

28220(f) provides up to 30 days to complete firearm background checks for 

any reason.” The court further explained: “[T]he record indicates the 
13

challenged policy remained publicly posted as recent as May 26, 2022, and 

[Campos] assert[s] it continues to remain live on the website.” 

Based on our review of the record, we disagree with the trial court’s 

assessment that the Department had a continuing policy permitting it to 

delay the completion of background checks beyond 10 days “for any reason.” 

By the time of the trial court’s ruling, the temporary delays were already a 

thing of the past and had been remedied for two years. There is no evidence 

that the Department exceeded the 10-day waiting period unlawfully at any 

time between July 2020 and July 2022, when the trial court made its ruling. 

The Department never stated it had a policy of delay for “any reason” and the

evidence confirms it never had such a policy. The Department’s policy and 

practice has always been to complete firearms background checks within the 

10-day waiting period, to specifically delay firearms transactions only when 

allowed by the statute, and to follow each of statute’s requirements. During

the pandemic, the Department did everything it could to complete 

background checks within 10 days, including encouraging and mandating 

overtime, redirecting staff from other units within the Department, offering 

flexible and alternative work schedules, and expediting hiring. 

Even with all the challenges that the Department faced, including the 

large increase in gun purchases, the Department still averaged less than 13 

days to complete authorizations during the early months of the pandemic, 

according to Campos’s own calculations. Even the most delayed background 

checks during that time were completed by day 18. The evidence shows the 

Department did not approach taking “up to 30 days,” as claimed by Campos.

Moreover, it is undisputed that the pandemic and social unrest caused the 

temporary delays. Simply put, there is no substantial evidence the
14

Department had a continuing policy to extend the length of time for 

background checks beyond 10 days “for any reason.”

The Department’s website notification did not establish the existence of 

any such policy. On the contrary, the Department’s website stated it

“strive[s] to . . . complete [background] checks in the shortest time possible.” 

It noted that before the pandemic, the Department “typically completed these 

checks” within the 10-day waiting period. Consistent with the evidence in 

the record, the Department explained that the pandemic affected the 

Department’s ability to increase its staff sufficiently to handle the “sustained 

increase in firearms and ammunitions transactions without compromising” 

employee health and safety. Again, pointing to the unprecedented situation 

the Department faced in the early months of the pandemic, the Department

merely stated that “circumstances may compel that background checks are 

completed after the expiration of the 10-day waiting period for firearms 

purchases.” 

The trial court apparently relied on the first sentence of the 

Department’s website notification, which stated: “Under Penal Code section 

28220(f)(4), the Department[] has up to 30 days to complete background 

checks on firearms purchasers.” But this is merely a correct statement of the 

cited Penal Code provision. Under the circumstances described in section 

28220, subdivision (f)(1), subdivision (f)(4) plainly does give the Department 

up to 30 days to complete a background check. (§ 28220, subd. (f)(4).) The 

website notice did not state that the Department legally had up to 30 days 

even if the circumstances specified in subdivision (f)(1) were not present. 

Considering the totality of the record, including the undisputed fact that the 

Department had been complying with the 10-day waiting period for two years 

after the temporary period of delays in 2020, this single sentence of the 
15

website notification did not establish that the Department had a continuing 

policy to take up to 30 days for any reason.

Because there were no ongoing delays to be remedied by the time 

Campos filed his petition, and no continuing Department policy to take over 

10 days to conduct a background check, there was no live controversy and 

Campos could not be granted any effective relief. The trial court erred by 

finding that the petition was not moot.

2. The Circumstances that Led to Delayed Background Checks

Are Unlikely to Recur and the Law Has Since Changed

We next consider whether to exercise our discretion to decide the 

merits notwithstanding the mootness issue. An appellate court retains 

discretion to decide a moot issue if it “raises an important issue likely to 

recur” and “regularly evades timely appellate review.” (Cerletti v. Newsom

(2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 760, 766; see also In re Christina A. (2001) 91 

Cal.App.4th 1153, 1158 [an exception to the rule of mootness exists “where 

the question to be decided is of continuing public importance and is one 

‘ “ ‘capable of repetition, yet evading review.’ ” ’ ”].) Because the 

circumstances that led the Department to delay processing firearms 

applications are unlikely to recur and do not regularly evade review, and the 

law has since changed to allow the Department to delay transfer of a firearm 

up to 30 days in an emergency, this exception is inapplicable.

Although Campos alleges that the pandemic and social unrest were

“hardly once-in-a-lifetime events,” we disagree. As this court has noted, 

“[t]he COVID-19 pandemic has been a ‘ “unique, nonrecurring

event.” ’ ” (Hernandez-Valenzuela v. Superior Court (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 

1108, 1127; see also People v. Lopez (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 227, 232 [noting 

“the unique and substantial public health risks created by the ongoing global 
16

pandemic”]; Rowan v. Kirkpatrick (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 289, 297

[“acknowledg[ing] the unprecedented nature of the circumstances presented 

by the COVID-19 pandemic and the hardships it may have caused.”].) When 

combined with the civil unrest that caused the Department’s offices to shut 

down for several days in early June 2020, and the concurrent surge in gun

sales throughout this period, the events facing the Department are

appropriately characterized as a once-in-a-lifetime occurrence.

The uncontested record before us shows that the Department has 

always completed background checks within 10 days, except for the first few 

months of the pandemic or when statutorily authorized. Only because of the

extraordinary confluence of unprecedented events did the Department take 

longer to perform its background checks for a few months, and even then, the 

delays were mostly trivial. Therefore, Campos is merely speculating when 

asserting that the Department will face circumstances again that lead to a

delay in processing firearms applications. We will not decide a moot appeal 

based on speculation about future hypothetical facts. And it would not be 

appropriate for us to tie the Department’s hands in carrying out its mission of 

protecting the public in some unknown future emergency we can only 

speculate about.

The legal issue presented here is also unlikely to recur because the 

Legislature amended the governing law while this appeal was pending. On 

September 26, 2023, the Governor signed into law Assembly Bill No. 1406 

(2023-2024 Reg. Sess.) (Assem. Bill No. 1406). Effective January 1, 2024, this 

bill amends section 28220 to authorize the Department to delay the delivery 

of a firearm for up to 30 days if an emergency condition has caused it to be 

unable to review records to determine a purchaser’s eligibility within the 10-

day waiting period. (Stats. 2023, ch. 244, § 1 (Assem. Bill No. 1406) [adding
17

§ 28220, subd. (g)(6)].) Because the governing law has changed, and the case 

is otherwise moot, no purpose would be served by clarifying a prior version of 

the law that will no longer be in effect by the time the remittitur is issued. 

(See MHC, supra, 106 Cal.App.4th at p. 215 [“[W]e decline to exercise our 

discretion to resolve the moot questions presented here . . . [because] any 

such resolution would be unlikely to provide guidance for future . . .

disputes.”).]

3. Other Courts Have Dismissed Challenges to Early 

Pandemic Responses as Moot

Other courts have similarly dismissed as moot actions arising in 

response to pandemic conditions. (See Cerletti v. Newsom, supra, 71 

Cal.App.5th at pp. 763–764 [controversy was moot where “one-time 

payments” to undocumented immigrants were provided “during an 

extraordinary pandemic, which caused a state of emergency and a temporary 

pause in the operation of the Legislature; there . . . is nothing in the record 

suggesting that it is likely to recur.”]; Brach v. Newsom (9th Cir. 2022) 38 

F.4th 6, 12 [“join[ing] numerous other circuit courts across the country that 

have recently dismissed as moot similar challenges to early pandemic 

restrictions.”]; Clark v. Governor of New Jersey (3rd Cir. 2022) 53 F.4th 769, 

778 [“Regarding the likelihood that the same pandemic conditions we faced in 

2020-21 will repeat themselves, it is hard to imagine that we could once again 

face anything quite like what confronted us then.”].)

Similar to Campos here, the parents in Brach sought “an insurance 

policy that the schools will never ever close, even in the face of yet another 

unexpected emergency or contingency.” (Brach, supra, 38 F.4th at p. 9.) The 

Ninth Circuit refused to decide the merits of such a hypothetical future 

dispute, declaring that “our jurisdiction is limited to live controversies and 
18

not speculative contingencies.” (Ibid.) So too is our jurisdiction. “ ‘ “[T]he 

duty of this court . . . is to decide actual controversies by a judgment which 

can be carried into effect, and not to give opinions upon moot questions or 

abstract propositions, or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot 

affect the matter in issue in the case before it.” ’ ” (Eye Dog Foundation v. 

State Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind (1967) 67 Cal.2d 536, 541.)

The cases cited by Campos are not to the contrary. For example, in 

Newsom v. Superior Court (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 1099, the court concluded 

that there was “an actual controversy regarding the scope of the Governor’s 

authority” to issue more than 50 different executive orders, and “the 

Governor clearly intend[ed] to continue [issuing such orders] during the 

COVID-19 state of emergency.” (Id. at p. 1111.) There, the pandemic was 

still an ongoing threat, and the Governor intended to keep issuing orders 

even though his authority to do so was challenged. (Ibid.) Here, on the other 

hand, the pandemic-related issues affecting the Department’s ability to 

process applications timely have been resolved, and the Department does not 

intend to delay the processing of applications. The other cases cited by 

Campos are distinguishable on similar grounds. (See County of Los Angeles 

Department of Public Health v. Superior Court (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 478,

487 [“The County has made it clear that it may re-impose its [challenged 

order] if the region faces another surge.”]; Flores v. Garland (9th Cir. 2021)

3 F.4th 1145, 1150 [holding that the “appeal is not moot, nor does the 

government maintain that it is” where the government stated it might 

engage in the disputed practice “in the future, either during the current 

pandemic or a future public health emergency, if such practice were 

permitted.”)
19

In sum, we conclude that this case should have been dismissed as moot 

because (1) the Department resolved the backlog in applications before the 

petition was filed and two years before the trial court granted relief, and no 

backlog has recurred despite continuing high levels of firearm sales, and (2) 

the issues were caused by an extraordinary situation that is unlikely to occur,

and there are no exceptions to the mootness rule for which we choose to 

exercise our discretion to consider the merits.

The proper disposition in these circumstances is to reverse the trial 

court’s judgment and remand with directions to dismiss the case as moot.2 

(Paul v. Milk Depots, Inc. (1964) 62 Cal.2d 129,134–135; Wilson & Wilson v. 

City Council of Redwood City (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1559, 1585 [“Where the 

trial court has decided a nonjusticiable controversy, the appropriate course is 

to reverse its judgment and to remand the matter to the trial court with 

directions to dismiss the action.”].)

2 Campos asks us to take judicial notice of legislative history materials 

for section 28220, subdivision (f). Because the case is moot, these documents 

are not necessary to resolve the appeal. We therefore deny the request. (See 

Mangini v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1057, 1063; County of 

San Diego v. State of California (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 580, 613, fn. 29.)
20

DISPOSITION

The trial court’s judgment is reversed. The matter is remanded with 

directions to the trial court to dismiss the underlying action as moot.

Appellants are entitled to recover their costs on appeal.

BUCHANAN, J.

WE CONCUR:

DO, Acting P. J.

CASTILLO, J.