Court Opinion

ID: 9901481
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-21 20:03:12.539531+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:33.576941
License: Public Domain

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                 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.,                                                 D081134

           Plaintiffs and Respondents,

           v.                                                         (Super. Ct. No. 37-2020-
                                                                      00030178-CU-MC-CTL)
 ROB BONTA, as Attorney General, etc.
 et al.,

           Defendants and Appellants.

         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
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.
                                       2
                  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
                                    3
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).)

                                       4
      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.
                                     5
                  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
                                       6
      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.

                                       7
      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
                                   8
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.

                                        9
      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
                                      10
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.)

                                       11
      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

                                       12
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

                                      13
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
                                      14
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
                                        15
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
                                      16
§ 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
                                        17
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.”)

                                       18
      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.)
                                       19
                                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.

                                       20