Court Opinion

ID: 9556619
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-17 21:08:44.795226+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:01:14.421270
License: Public Domain

Filed 8/17/23 Robertson v. Ruffin CA2/1
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

 KENNETH ROBERTSON, SR.,                                      B318042

           Plaintiff and Respondent,                          (Los Angeles County
                                                              Super. Ct. No. 21CMRO00669)
           v.

 BOBBY RUFFIN,

           Defendant and Appellant.

     APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Emily T. Spear, Judge. Dismissed.
     Bobby Ruffin, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant.
     Kenneth Robertson, Sr., in pro. per., for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
             __________________________________
      Appellant Bobby Ruffin appeals the trial court’s denial of
his motion to terminate an elder abuse restraining order issued
against him on behalf of respondent Kenneth Robertson, Sr.
Because the restraining order expired in February 2022 and
Ruffin advances no reason for us to exercise our discretion to
consider the denial of a motion to terminate an already
terminated restraining order, we find his appeal moot and
dismiss it.

      FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

      A.      The Court Grants a Restraining Order
       On July 1, 2021, Robertson filed a request for an elder
abuse restraining order against Ruffin. The request was
accompanied by a signed declaration from Robertson, alleging
that Ruffin, who was a member of the church where Robertson
was a new pastor, has been “disrupting church and harassing
members.” Robertson alleged two incidents: In April 2021,
church members were having their temperature taken and, when
it was time to take Ruffin’s temperature, Ruffin refused and
“grabbed me by my arm real hard.” Also, during a June 2021
church meeting, Ruffin “became angry and started walking
towards the deacon in a very aggressive ma[nn]er.” Robertson
stepped in between Ruffin and the deacon and Ruffin “pushed the
chair on me, hitting me on my legs.” Robertson alleged that as a
result, he had “[s]oreness to my knees.” Robertson concluded he
felt unsafe around Ruffin. Also accompanying the request were:
(1) a letter addressed to Ruffin and signed by Robertson and four
other individuals informing Ruffin that he was excommunicated;
(2) an unsigned statement of Donald E. Harris (Chairman of the
Deacon Board), recounting instances of Ruffin disrupting church

                                2
activities, including one instance where Ruffin threatened a
Sunday school teacher and “put his hands in [Harris’s] chest as if
he was going to push [him] out of the way”; and (3) two
statements of Willie Rollins, claiming Ruffin had threatened to
“whoop [his] ass” and wanted to fight him, and that he was afraid
of Ruffin.1
       On July 16, 2021, Ruffin filed a response to Robertson’s
request for a restraining order, asserting no restraining order
was necessary because he was 74 years old, disabled, and did not
threaten or commit any violence toward anyone. Ruffin alleged
he had not threatened Rollins, but had instead stated, “ ‘When I
was a young man I would get in that ass’ for what he did during
communion.” A handwritten witness statement Ruffin submitted
along with his response claimed that Ruffin had said, “ ‘When I
was in the world, I would have got in that ass.’ ”2
       On July 22, 2021, at Ruffin’s request, the hearing on
Robertson’s petition was continued to August 12, 2021.3 On
August 12, 2021, the court heard the petition. Three witnesses
testified on Robertson’s behalf and Ruffin testified on his own
behalf. At the end of the hearing, the court granted a restraining
order that expired in six months. Ruffin did not appeal this
order.

      1 Neither Harris’s nor Rollins’s written statements were

made under penalty of perjury.
      2 This statement purported to be from a member of the

same church as the parties; it was neither signed nor made under
penalty of perjury.
      3 The court’s minute order gives no reason for the

continuance, and no transcript from the hearing was included in
the appellate record.

                                 3
      B.     Request to Terminate Restraining Order
      On October 13, 2021, Ruffin filed a request to terminate the
restraining order, arguing that he had not abused Robertson and
that the testimony of Robertson (submitted through declaration)
and his witnesses were all “lies.” He also objected that the court
“would not allow my witnesses to be heard” at the original
hearing. On November 12, 2021, the court denied Ruffin’s
request, stating it would not relitigate the case. Ruffin timely
appealed.
      On February 9, 2022, the court denied Robertson’s request
to renew the restraining order, and ordered the case dismissed.

                            DISCUSSION
       Under Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657.03,
“[a]n elder . . . who has suffered abuse . . . may seek protective
orders as provided in this section.” (Welf. & Inst. Code, §
15657.03, subd. (a)(1).) “In the discretion of the court, an order
issued after notice and a hearing under this section may have a
duration of not more than five years, subject to termination or
modification by further order of the court either on written
stipulation filed with the court or on the motion of a party.” (Id.
at subd. (i)(1).) Ruffin contends the court erred in denying his
request to terminate the restraining order.
       Ruffin admits that “just before the restraining order was to
end,” Robinson asked to renew the order but “[t]he judge denied
this request.” The record reflects that the restraining order
expired in February 2022, and the court dismissed the case. “A
case is moot and will be dismissed when the appellate court
cannot grant the appellant any effective relief.” (Shapell Socal
Rental Properties, LLC v. Chico’s FAS, Inc. (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th

                                 4
198, 209; see also Wilson & Wilson v. City Council of Redwood
City (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1559, 1574 [“A case is considered
moot when ‘the question addressed was at one time a live issue in
the case,’ but has been deprived of life ‘because of events
occurring after the judicial process was initiated’ ”]; Harris v.
Stampolis (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 484, 495 [“ ‘ “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” ’ ”].)
       Here, Ruffin’s appeal is moot because we can grant him no
effective relief. Even were we to find the court erred in denying
his motion to terminate the restraining order, we could do no
more than direct the trial court to grant his motion. This would
be a meaningless act—the restraining order has already expired,
the court has already denied a request to extend it, and the case
has already been dismissed.4
       While we have discretion to consider moot appeals, Ruffin
makes no argument why we should exercise our discretion to do
so here, and we see none.

      4 At oral argument, Ruffin emphasized that he wanted to

clear his name because he believed it was unfair that he was not
permitted to call witnesses or conduct cross-examination at the
underlying hearing. However, Ruffin’s concerns do not translate
into relief that we can grant. The restraining order is no longer
in effect.

                                5
                         DISPOSITION
      The appeal is dismissed as moot. In the interests of justice,
each party shall bear their own costs on appeal.
      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

                                                      CHANEY, J.

We concur:

             ROTHSCHILD, P. J.

             BENDIX, J.

                                 6