Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 19, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

W.R. v. G.B. CA3

California Court of Appeal

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: C103758

• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Opinion

• Authorities (3)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (3.3K)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

Filed 3/19/26 W.R. v. G.B. CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Butte)

W.R., C103758

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 24CV01280)

v.

G.B.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant G.B. appeals from an order denying his request to terminate a civil
harassment restraining order entered against him. Because the restraining order expired
by its terms on May 13, 2025, no appellate relief can be granted. We therefore dismiss
the appeal as moot.
BACKGROUND
At the outset, we note that the record before us consists of only a short clerk’s
transcript as well as several minute orders and motions with which the record was
augmented at G.B.’s request. It does not include a reporter’s transcript of the relevant
oral proceedings or a suitable substitute. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.120(b).) The

1
sparse record before us indicates that, on May 3, 2024, a proof of personal service was
filed with the trial court indicating that G.B. had been served with a copy of a temporary
restraining order and a notice of a court hearing. On May 13, 2024, according to a
minute order, the court held a hearing on a request for a restraining order. G.B. was not
present. The court granted respondent W.R.’s request for a civil harassment restraining
order and set the restraining order to expire on May 13, 2025.
On January 17, 2025, G.B. filed a “motion to convict plaintiff of com[m]itting
perjury in court and to dismiss TRO after the fact,” in which he argued, among other
things, that the proof of service filed with the trial court was fraudulent. (Capitalization
omitted.) On March 24, 2025, the trial court held a hearing on G.B.’s request to
terminate the civil harassment restraining order. The matter was continued because
W.R.’s witness was experiencing health issues. On April 15, 2025, G.B. filed a motion to
compel W.R. to provide contact information for the process server.
On May 8, 2025, according to a minute order, G.B. was not present when the trial
court first called the matter, and the court denied the request to terminate the restraining
order and the motion to compel without prejudice. After G.B. arrived, the court recalled
the matter and vacated the denials. W.R. and G.B. were sworn in and testified. The
process server was sworn in and testified by telephone. The matter was submitted, and
the court denied the request to terminate the restraining order and the motion to compel
with prejudice.
G.B. appealed. After this matter became fully briefed in November 2025, we gave
the parties the opportunity to submit supplemental briefing addressing the reasons, if any,
we should not dismiss the appeal as moot in light of the restraining order’s May 2025
expiration date. G.B. filed a brief opposing dismissal.
DISCUSSION
As a general rule, an appeal becomes moot when the occurrence of an event makes
it impossible for an appellate court to grant any effective relief. (Newsom v. Superior

2
Court (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 1099, 1109.) “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. [Citation.] However, ‘there 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 [citation].” (Environmental Charter High School v. Centinela
Valley Union High School Dist. (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 139, 144.)
We conclude that the present appeal is moot and decline to exercise our discretion
to consider it. The restraining order that is the subject of this appeal expired, by its own
terms, on May 13, 2025, nearly four months before G.B. filed his opening brief on
September 2, 2025. Nothing in the record suggests that the exceptions to the general rule
of mootness apply, and we are unpersuaded by G.B.’s arguments for why this appeal
remains live. He argues that dismissal of his appeal would allow unlawful behavior and
abuse of the judicial system to continue, that he was denied the right to a fair trial, and
that the expired restraining order is on his “permanent record,” resulting in “judicial
insecurity” and reputational harm. Although reputational harm may be sufficient to
overcome mootness in the context of a criminal proceeding (see People v. Delong (2002)
101 Cal.App.4th 482, 484, 492), G.B. fails to cite any legal authority extending that
principle to the context of an expired civil restraining order. And even if reputational
consequences could, in some cases, suffice to show a live controversy over a terminated
restraining order, the record before us contains no evidence that such harm has occurred,
or is likely to occur, here. Accordingly, the issues raised in this appeal have been
rendered moot, and we will dismiss the appeal. (See Cucamongans United for
Reasonable Expansion v. City of Rancho Cucamonga (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 473, 479

3
[“[a]n appeal should be dismissed as moot when the occurrence of events renders it
impossible for the appellate court to grant appellant any effective relief”].)
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.

/s/
FEINBERG, J.

We concur:

/s/
RENNER, Acting P. J.

/s/
BOULWARE EURIE, J.

4