Court Opinion

ID: 9928107
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-30 20:05:32.404317+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:48:51.575120
License: Public Domain

Filed 1/30/24 Meyners v. Bolanos CA2/8
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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(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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

                         SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                      DIVISION EIGHT

 MICHAEL WAYNE MEYNERS,                                         B321781

           Plaintiff and Respondent,                            (Los Angeles County
                                                                Super. Ct.
           v.                                                   No. 20IWRO00546)

 HUGO RICARDO BOLANOS, JR.,

           Defendant and Appellant.

      APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County. Patricia J. Titus, Judge. Affirmed.
      Law Office of Marcus Gomez and Marcus Gomez for
Defendant and Appellant.
      The Law Office of Negin Yamini and Negin Yamini for
Plaintiff and Respondent.
                     ——————————
      Hugo Ricardo Bolanos, Jr., appeals from the trial court’s
denial of his motion to set aside a civil harassment restraining
order against him, which protects Michael Wayne Meyners.
Because Bolanos has not shown the trial court erred, we affirm.
       FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
       On August 27, 2020, the trial court issued a three-year civil
harassment restraining order against Bolanos under Code of
Civil Procedure section 527.6, protecting Meyners.
       In March 2022, Bolanos moved to set aside the restraining
order. Bolanos argued the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction
over him when it issued the restraining order, because he was not
properly served with notice that the restraining order hearing
had been continued. In support of his motion, Bolanos relied on
the fact that the process server failed to indicate on the proof of
service that Bolanos received a copy of the notice of continued
hearing. Meyners opposed the motion asserting, among other
things, that Bolanos had actual and constructive knowledge of
the restraining order hearing, and that the motion should be
denied because Bolanos failed to provide a supporting declaration
stating he was not actually served with the notice of the
continued hearing.
       The trial court denied the requested relief, finding Bolanos
failed to provide any evidence he was not actually served with the
notice of the continued hearing. Bolanos appealed.
                         DISCUSSION
I.    The appeal is not moot
      As a threshold matter, we must first determine whether
Bolanos’s appeal should be dismissed as moot given the
restraining order expired on August 27, 2023, while this appeal
was pending. We invited the parties to file supplemental briefing

                                 2
under Government Code section 68081, addressing whether the
expiration of the restraining order rendered the appeal moot.
Bolanos responded his appeal was not moot because the
restraining order is currently serving as the basis for a pending
criminal proceeding, and that if he prevails in this appeal, he can
move to dismiss the criminal charges against him.
       As a general rule, “a case becomes moot when a court
ruling can have no practical effect or cannot provide the parties
with effective relief.” (Lincoln Place Tenants Assn. v. City of Los
Angeles (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 425, 454.) “ ‘ “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.” ’ ” (Harris v. Stampolis (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 484, 495.)
“ ‘[T]here are three discretionary exceptions to the rules
regarding mootness: (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.’ ” (Environmental Charter High School v.
Centinela Valley Union High School Dist. (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th
139, 144.)
       The pending criminal charges based on the expired
restraining order convince us the outcome of this appeal could
potentially provide Bolanos with effective relief, and there may be
a recurrence of the controversy between the parties that warrants
applying the discretionary mootness exception. Therefore, we
exercise our discretion and consider the merits of Bolanos’s
appeal.

                                 3
II.    The trial court did not abuse its discretion in
       denying Bolanos’s motion to set aside the restraining
       order
       We review the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion to
set aside for abuse of discretion. (In re Marriage of Eben-King &
King (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 92, 118.) The trial court’s ruling “will
not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of a clear showing of
abuse of discretion, resulting in injury sufficiently grave as to
amount to a manifest miscarriage of justice.” (Ibid.) Further, we
will not disturb the trial court’s express or implied factual
determinations if they are supported by substantial evidence.
(Giorgio v. Synergy Management Group, LLC (2014) 231
Cal.App.4th 241, 247.)
       On appeal, Bolanos merely repeats his arguments from the
trial court that the restraining order is void because the proof of
service was defective. Again, Bolanos relies on the fact that the
process server did not indicate on the proof of service that
Bolanos was served with the notice of the continued hearing.
However, the trial court already rejected this contention, and
impliedly found that Bolanos was served with the notice of the
continued hearing and that he had actual notice of the
restraining order. (Giorgio v. Synergy Management Group, LLC,
supra, 231 Cal.App.4th at p. 247.) Because Bolanos failed to
provide any evidence to the contrary, the trial court did not abuse
its discretion in denying his motion to set aside the restraining
order.

                                4
                        DISPOSITION
     The order is affirmed. Respondent is awarded his costs on
appeal.

                                   VIRAMONTES, J.

     WE CONCUR:

                 STRATTON, P. J.

                 WILEY, J.

                               5