mootness doctrine in California

2026“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.” (Environmental Charter High School v. Centinela Valley Union High School Dist. (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 139, 144 .) Such an appeal should be dismissed unless one of the discretionary exceptions to the mootness doctrine applies: “(1) when the case presents an issue of broad public interest that is 2 likely to recur; (2) when there may be a recurrence of the controversy between the parties; [or] (3) when a material question remains for th

2024(See Cucamongans United for Reasonable Expansion v. City of Rancho Cucamonga (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 473, 479-480 [identifying discretionary exceptions to the mootness doctrine].) We decline to do so.

2021(See, e.g., MHC Operating Limited Partnership v. City of San Jose (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 204, 215 ; Giles v. Horn (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 206, 228 .) She asserts, however, that we should exercise our discretion under the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine and posits this issue is likely to recur in the future.

2015The People argue that the involuntary medication order is therefore moot, as there is no effective relief that may be 5 afforded to defendant.1 (See Eye Dog Foundation v. State Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind (1967) 67 Cal.2d 536, 541 .) “A case is moot when the decision of the reviewing court ‘can have no practical impact or provide the parties effectual relief. [Citation.]’ [Citation.] ‘When no effective relief can be granted, an appeal is moot and will be dismissed.’ [Citation.]” (MHC Operating Limited Partnership v. City of San Jose (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 204, 214 .) There is an exceptio

1984(Daly v. Superior Court (1977) 19 Cal.3d 132, 141 [ 137 Cal.Rptr. 14 , 560 P.2d 1193 ].) “The novel medical, legal and ethical issues presented in this case are no doubt capable of repetition and therefore should not be ignored by relying on the mootness doctrine.

1984(Daly v. Superior Court (1977) 19 Cal.3d 132, 141 [ 137 Cal.Rptr. 14 , 560 P.2d 1193 ].) “The novel medical, legal and ethical issues presented in this case are no doubt capable of repetition and therefore should not be ignored by relying on the mootness doctrine.

2021These exceptions are: “(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.” ( Cucamongans, supra, 82 Cal.App.4th at pp. 479-480.) “[I]f a pending case poses an issue of broad public interest that is likely to recur, the court may exercise an inherent discretion to resolve that issue even though an event occurring during its pendency would normally render the matter moot.” (In re William M. (197

2017(See In re William M., supra , 3 Cal.3d at p. 25 , 89 Cal.Rptr. 33 , 473 P.2d 737 [deciding issue presented in otherwise-moot appeal, "[i]n the hope that we may provide much-needed guidance for 'the orderly administration of justice' "].) That standard is not met here.

2023(Cf. In re D.P. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 266 , 277 [though a court finding that “a parent engaged in abuse or neglect of a child” in the dependency context “is generally stigmatizing, complaining of ‘stigma’ alone is insufficient to sustain an appeal” if the stigma is not “paired with some effect on the [parent’s] legal status that is capable of being redressed by a favorable court decision”]; People v. Delong (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 482, 486-489 [in the criminal context, clearing one’s name may serve as an exception permitting review of a moot appeal].) Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its

2013He points out that “a mootness inquiry may also include consideration of whether prejudicial consequences or disadvantageous collateral consequences can be ameliorated by a successful appeal.” (Delong, supra, 101 Cal.App.4th at p. 487 ; see also People v. Ellison (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1360, 1368-1369 .) Defendant asserts that the probation violation may have future collateral consequences, pointing out that a defendant’s poor performance on probation can be used in determining whether to grant probation 3 Pursuant to respondent’s request in the motion to dismiss, we take judicial notice of se

2023(Cf. In re Webb (2019) 7 Cal.5th 270, 273-274 [exercising discretion to decide moot case regarding bail release conditions, because it presented a question of statewide general public concern and because “[q]uestions involving release on bail especially tend to evade review”]; Conservatorship of Wendland (2001) 26 Cal.4th 519, 524, fn. 1 [exercising discretion to decide moot case raising “important issues about the fundamental rights of incompetent conservatees” and “the corresponding limitations on conservators’ power to withhold life-sustaining treatment,” which issues “tend to evade review

2019An exception to the mootness doctrine may apply where an issue, although technically moot, “presents a ‘potentially recurring question of public importance.’ ” (Carbajal, supra, 10 Cal.4th at p. 1120, fn. 5 ; accord Conservatorship of Wendland (2001) 26 Cal.4th 519, 524, fn. 1 (Wendland) [“We have discretion to decide otherwise moot cases presenting important issues that are capable of repetition yet tend to evade review”]; In re Erica R., supra, 240 Cal.App.4th at p. 911 ; see generally In re David B. (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 633, 653-654 [discussing different articulations of this exception to

2022(See People v. DeLeon (2017) 3 Cal.5th 640, 646, fn. 2 [a criminal defendant can “demonstrate sufficiently concrete consequences to avoid a finding of mootness, even if the term of imprisonment has already concluded”]; People v. Succop (1967) 67 Cal.2d 785, 790 [a “defendant is entitled to the opportunity to clear his name of the adjudication that he is a 4 probable mentally disordered sex offender”]; People v. Ellison (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1360 , 1368–1369 [“[a] criminal case should not be considered moot where a defendant has completed a sentence where . . . the sentence may have ‘disadvant

2013He points out that “a mootness inquiry may also include consideration of whether prejudicial consequences or disadvantageous collateral consequences can be ameliorated by a successful appeal.” (Delong, supra, 101 Cal.App.4th at p. 487 ; see also People v. Ellison (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1360, 1368-1369 .) Defendant asserts that the probation violation may have future collateral consequences, pointing out that a defendant’s poor performance on probation can be used in determining whether to grant probation 3 Pursuant to respondent’s request in the motion to dismiss, we take judicial notice of se

2020(See Building a Better Redondo, Inc. v. City of Redondo Beach (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 852, 867 [no exception to mootness applied because “the appeal of the judgment in this case presents 15 fact-specific issues that are unlikely to recur”]; Santa Monica Baykeeper v. City of Malibu (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 1538, 1551 [declining to apply an “exception for recurring controversies” to an otherwise moot appeal because the recurrence of issues concerning a particular construction project in future undefined projects was speculative].) Amgen also cites Wilson & Wilson v. City Council of Redwood City (20

2020Thus, similar to Santa Monica Baykeeper, supra, 193 Cal.App.4th 1538 , another case in which the Court of Appeal held completion of a building project mooted a CEQA claim, “our case is analogous to Wilson . . . to the extent that [Parkford] failed to take steps to maintain the status quo pending resolution of its claims by seeking injunctive relief or a stay until . . . the project was nearly complete.” (Santa Monica Baykeeper, at p. 1551.) Finally, Bakersfield Citizens, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th 1184 , relied upon by Parkford in its trial briefing, is also distinguishable because that case invol

2020(Eye Dog Foundation v. State Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind (1967) 67 Cal.2d 536, 541 [when an event occurs that renders it impossible for the court to grant effective relief, the court will dismiss an appeal].) Petitioner asserts, however, this court should consider, under the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine, the constitutional concerns raised by respondent’s revised pro. per. policies and procedures pertaining to investigative and ancillary defense services requests and subpoena review and respondent’s failure to provide sufficient written information regarding such pol

2020(Eye Dog Foundation v. State Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind (1967) 67 Cal.2d 536, 541 [when an event occurs that renders it impossible for the court to grant effective relief, the court will dismiss an appeal].) Petitioner asserts, however, this court should consider, under the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine, the constitutional concerns raised by respondent’s revised pro. per. policies and procedures pertaining to investigative and ancillary defense services requests and subpoena review and respondent’s failure to provide sufficient written information regarding such pol

2022(See People v. DeLeon (2017) 3 Cal.5th 640, 646, fn. 2 [a criminal defendant can “demonstrate sufficiently concrete consequences to avoid a finding of mootness, even if the term of imprisonment has already concluded”]; People v. Succop (1967) 67 Cal.2d 785, 790 [a “defendant is entitled to the opportunity to clear his name of the adjudication that he is a 4 probable mentally disordered sex offender”]; People v. Ellison (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1360 , 1368–1369 [“[a] criminal case should not be considered moot where a defendant has completed a sentence where . . . the sentence may have ‘disadvant

2021(See People v. DeLeon (2017) 3 Cal.5th 640, 646, fn. 2 [a criminal defendant can “demonstrate sufficiently concrete consequences to avoid a finding of mootness, even if the term of imprisonment has already concluded”]; People v. Succop (1967) 67 Cal.2d 785, 790 [a “defendant is entitled to the opportunity to clear his name of the adjudication that he is a probable mentally disordered sex offender”]; People v. Ellison (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1360, 1368-1369 [“[a] criminal case should not be considered moot where a defendant has completed a sentence where . . . the sentence may have ‘disadvantage

2018Proc., § 1060, italics added.) "[T]he fact that an issue raised in an action for declaratory relief is of broad general interest is not enough for the courts to grant such relief in the absence of a true justiciable *261 controversy [citations]." ( Winter v. Gnaizda (1979) 90 Cal.App.3d 750 , 756, 152 Cal.Rptr. 700 [citing California Water & Telephone Co. v. County of Los Angeles (1967) 253 Cal.App.2d 16 , 61 Cal.Rptr. 618 ]; accord, Zetterberg v. State Dept. of Public Health (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 657 , 662, 118 Cal.Rptr. 100 [same].) "[M]ootness is not a jurisdictional defect." ( 3 Witkin, Cal

2018Proc., § 1060, italics added.) "[T]he fact that an issue raised in an action for declaratory relief is of broad general interest is not enough for the courts to grant such relief in the absence of a true justiciable *261 controversy [citations]." ( Winter v. Gnaizda (1979) 90 Cal.App.3d 750 , 756, 152 Cal.Rptr. 700 [citing California Water & Telephone Co. v. County of Los Angeles (1967) 253 Cal.App.2d 16 , 61 Cal.Rptr. 618 ]; accord, Zetterberg v. State Dept. of Public Health (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 657 , 662, 118 Cal.Rptr. 100 [same].) "[M]ootness is not a jurisdictional defect." ( 3 Witkin, Cal

2018Proc., § 1060, italics added.) "[T]he fact that an issue raised in an action for declaratory relief is of broad general interest is not enough for the courts to grant such relief in the absence of a true justiciable *261 controversy [citations]." ( Winter v. Gnaizda (1979) 90 Cal.App.3d 750 , 756, 152 Cal.Rptr. 700 [citing California Water & Telephone Co. v. County of Los Angeles (1967) 253 Cal.App.2d 16 , 61 Cal.Rptr. 618 ]; accord, Zetterberg v. State Dept. of Public Health (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 657 , 662, 118 Cal.Rptr. 100 [same].) "[M]ootness is not a jurisdictional defect." ( 3 Witkin, Cal

2018Proc., § 1060, italics added.) "[T]he fact that an issue raised in an action for declaratory relief is of broad general interest is not enough for the courts to grant such relief in the absence of a true justiciable *261 controversy [citations]." ( Winter v. Gnaizda (1979) 90 Cal.App.3d 750 , 756, 152 Cal.Rptr. 700 [citing California Water & Telephone Co. v. County of Los Angeles (1967) 253 Cal.App.2d 16 , 61 Cal.Rptr. 618 ]; accord, Zetterberg v. State Dept. of Public Health (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 657 , 662, 118 Cal.Rptr. 100 [same].) "[M]ootness is not a jurisdictional defect." ( 3 Witkin, Cal

2021As such, it does not fall within the second broad public interest exception to the mootness doctrine identified in David B., supra, 12 Cal.App.5th at page 644 .

2021The exception to the mootness rule generally turns on “ ‘the importance of the issue presented and the likelihood that it will recur.’ ” (Sturgell v. Department of Fish & Wildlife, supra, 43 Cal.App.5th at p. 46.) While there are various articulations of when an appellate court may in its discretion decide a moot issue (id. at pp. 46–47), “the common thread running through the cases is that doing so is appropriate only if a ruling on the merits will affect future proceedings between the parties or will have some precedential consequence in future litigation generally.” (In re David B. (2017) 1

2025Appeals Bd. (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 981, 988, fn. 6 [“an exception to the mootness doctrine is the distinct possibility that the controversy between the parties may recur”].) However, this appeal presents “fact-specific issues that are unlikely to recur and thus does not justify our exercise of discretion to resolve moot questions.” (Building a Better Redondo, Inc. v. City of Redondo Beach, supra, 203 Cal.App.4th at p. 867 .) Nothing in the record suggests Mariana sought to renew the restraining order.

2021We will not render opinions on moot questions . . . .’ ” (Building a Better Redondo, Inc. v. City of Redondo Beach (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 852, 866 .) There are exceptions to the mootness doctrine which allow a reviewing court to exercise its discretion to consider the issues raised on appeal.

2018Proc., § 1060, italics added.) "[T]he fact that an issue raised in an action for declaratory relief is of broad general interest is not enough for the courts to grant such relief in the absence of a true justiciable *261 controversy [citations]." ( Winter v. Gnaizda (1979) 90 Cal.App.3d 750 , 756, 152 Cal.Rptr. 700 [citing California Water & Telephone Co. v. County of Los Angeles (1967) 253 Cal.App.2d 16 , 61 Cal.Rptr. 618 ]; accord, Zetterberg v. State Dept. of Public Health (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 657 , 662, 118 Cal.Rptr. 100 [same].) "[M]ootness is not a jurisdictional defect." ( 3 Witkin, Cal

2018Proc., § 1060, italics added.) "[T]he fact that an issue raised in an action for declaratory relief is of broad general interest is not enough for the courts to grant such relief in the absence of a true justiciable *261 controversy [citations]." ( Winter v. Gnaizda (1979) 90 Cal.App.3d 750 , 756, 152 Cal.Rptr. 700 [citing California Water & Telephone Co. v. County of Los Angeles (1967) 253 Cal.App.2d 16 , 61 Cal.Rptr. 618 ]; accord, Zetterberg v. State Dept. of Public Health (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 657 , 662, 118 Cal.Rptr. 100 [same].) "[M]ootness is not a jurisdictional defect." ( 3 Witkin, Cal

2022While it is true, as defendant argues, that a reviewing court may exercise its discretion to decide a moot case if it raises an important issue that is likely to recur yet evade review (see, e.g., People v. DeLeon, supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 646 ; Conservatorship of Wendland (2001) 26 Cal.4th 519, 524, fn. 1 ), nothing in the present record convinces us that this is such a case.

2022The failure to object deprived the Fifth Appellate District of an opportunity to address the issue and results in the absence of any record to support McFaddin’s assertion that the government’s 6 delay in the filing of respondent’s opening brief constitutes “grossly negligent behavior.” Nor are we persuaded by McFaddin’s contention that we should review his appellate arguments as an exception to the mootness doctrine because he raises issues that are “ ‘likely to recur, might otherwise evade appellate review, and [are] of continuing public interest.’ ” (People v. DeLeon (2017) 3 Cal.5th 640, 6

2013(Eye Dog Foundation v. State Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind (1967) 67 Cal.2d 536, 541 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 21 , 432 P.2d 717 ]; see Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 78 [ 70 Cal.Rptr.3d 88 ].) “A case is moot when the decision of the reviewing court ‘can have no practical impact or provide the parties effectual relief. [Citation.]’ [Citation.] ‘When no effective relief can be granted, an appeal is moot and will be dismissed.’ [Citation.]” (MHC Operating Limited Partnership v. City of San Jose (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 204, 214 [ 130 Cal.Rptr.2d 564 ] (MHC).) Petitioners c

2013(Eye Dog Foundation v. State Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind (1967) 67 Cal.2d 536, 541 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 21 , 432 P.2d 717 ]; see Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 78 [ 70 Cal.Rptr.3d 88 ].) “A case is moot when the decision of the reviewing court ‘can have no practical impact or provide the parties effectual relief. [Citation.]’ [Citation.] ‘When no effective relief can be granted, an appeal is moot and will be dismissed.’ [Citation.]” (MHC Operating Limited Partnership v. City of San Jose (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 204, 214 [ 130 Cal.Rptr.2d 564 ] (MHC).) Petitioners c

2018Proc., § 1060, italics added.) "[T]he fact that an issue raised in an action for declaratory relief is of broad general interest is not enough for the courts to grant such relief in the absence of a true justiciable *261 controversy [citations]." ( Winter v. Gnaizda (1979) 90 Cal.App.3d 750 , 756, 152 Cal.Rptr. 700 [citing California Water & Telephone Co. v. County of Los Angeles (1967) 253 Cal.App.2d 16 , 61 Cal.Rptr. 618 ]; accord, Zetterberg v. State Dept. of Public Health (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 657 , 662, 118 Cal.Rptr. 100 [same].) "[M]ootness is not a jurisdictional defect." ( 3 Witkin, Cal

2018Proc., § 1060, italics added.) "[T]he fact that an issue raised in an action for declaratory relief is of broad general interest is not enough for the courts to grant such relief in the absence of a true justiciable *261 controversy [citations]." ( Winter v. Gnaizda (1979) 90 Cal.App.3d 750 , 756, 152 Cal.Rptr. 700 [citing California Water & Telephone Co. v. County of Los Angeles (1967) 253 Cal.App.2d 16 , 61 Cal.Rptr. 618 ]; accord, Zetterberg v. State Dept. of Public Health (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 657 , 662, 118 Cal.Rptr. 100 [same].) "[M]ootness is not a jurisdictional defect." ( 3 Witkin, Cal

2018(Los Angeles International Charter High School v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1348, 1354 [“an exception to the mootness doctrine is the distinct possibility that the controversy between the parties may recur”].) 7 Accordingly, to the extent there is merit to State Fund’s arguments that the administrative director did not receive proper notice of Zuniga’s petition and should have been included as a party, those arguments are moot. 8 Interactive Trucking, Inc. and State Fund gave notice under California Rules of Court, rule 8.254 of two authorities issued after the pa

2017Charter High School v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1348 , 1354, 147 Cal.Rptr.3d 757 ["[A]n exception to the mootness doctrine is the distinct possibility that the controversy between the parties may recur"]; see Eisenberg et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Appeals and Writs (The Rutter Group 2016) ¶¶ 5:32 to 5:33, pp. 5-13 to 5-17). 12 Despite the nuanced variation in these articulations of when an appellate court may proceed to decide an otherwise moot appeal, the common thread running through the cases is that doing so is appropriate only if a ruling on the merits

2016(See Malatka, supra, 188 Cal.App.4th at p. 1088 [identifying three discretionary mootness exceptions in a civil 1 Taylor also complains of the temporary restrictions (such as ability to travel and carry a firearm) the restraining order placed upon him, but those, of course, are no longer in effect since the restraining order has expired.

2016(See Malatka v. Helm (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1074, 1088 .) Nor does McNeely argue that we should apply any other discretionary exception to the mootness doctrine.

2020(See Building a Better Redondo, Inc. v. City of Redondo Beach (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 852, 867 [no exception to mootness applied because “the appeal of the judgment in this case presents 15 fact-specific issues that are unlikely to recur”]; Santa Monica Baykeeper v. City of Malibu (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 1538, 1551 [declining to apply an “exception for recurring controversies” to an otherwise moot appeal because the recurrence of issues concerning a particular construction project in future undefined projects was speculative].) Amgen also cites Wilson & Wilson v. City Council of Redwood City (20

2014However, in Bakersfield Citizens, the court examined a project only partially built, rather than one now fully complete.8 Under circumstances analogous to the present case, courts have rejected the Bakersfield Citizens approach and instead adhere to cases such as Hixon v. County of Los Angeles, supra, 38 Cal.App.3d 370 and Wilson & Wilson v. City Council of Redwood City (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1559 to conclude the mootness doctrine applied.

2024(See Giles v. Horn (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 206, 228 [reversing as moot the trial court’s ruling that the County of San Diego violated the County Charter by hiring private contractors to provide services under a California welfare- to-work program because the relevant contracts had expired, and declining to apply the public importance exception to the mootness doctrine because the plaintiffs’ claim involved a “particularly factual determination that must be resolved on a case-by-case basis, dependent upon the specific facts of a given 23 situation,” and therefore it was “not one on which we woul

2021(See, e.g., MHC Operating Limited Partnership v. City of San Jose (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 204, 215 ; Giles v. Horn (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 206, 228 .) She asserts, however, that we should exercise our discretion under the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine and posits this issue is likely to recur in the future.

2024“A case is moot when the reviewing court cannot provide the parties with practical, effectual relief.” (City of San Jose v. International Assn. of Firefighters, Local 230 (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 408, 417 .) “The underlying policy behind the mootness doctrine is that courts decide justiciable controversies and do not normally render . . . advisory opinions.” (In re Oliveras (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 771 , 776; Hensley v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 1337, 1344 [same]; see National Ass’n of Wine Bottlers v. Paul (1969) 268 Cal.App.2d 741, 746 [“[a]lthough a case may originally p

2023We also conclude there is little reason to believe any future recurrence of the issue will evade judicial review. 7 In National Assn. of Wine Bottlers v. Paul (1969) 268 Cal.App.2d 741 , due to a record-breaking crop and record-breaking production, the market for dessert wine did not match mounting surpluses.

2018Proc., § 1060, italics added.) "[T]he fact that an issue raised in an action for declaratory relief is of broad general interest is not enough for the courts to grant such relief in the absence of a true justiciable *261 controversy [citations]." ( Winter v. Gnaizda (1979) 90 Cal.App.3d 750 , 756, 152 Cal.Rptr. 700 [citing California Water & Telephone Co. v. County of Los Angeles (1967) 253 Cal.App.2d 16 , 61 Cal.Rptr. 618 ]; accord, Zetterberg v. State Dept. of Public Health (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 657 , 662, 118 Cal.Rptr. 100 [same].) "[M]ootness is not a jurisdictional defect." ( 3 Witkin, Cal

2018Proc., § 1060, italics added.) "[T]he fact that an issue raised in an action for declaratory relief is of broad general interest is not enough for the courts to grant such relief in the absence of a true justiciable *261 controversy [citations]." ( Winter v. Gnaizda (1979) 90 Cal.App.3d 750 , 756, 152 Cal.Rptr. 700 [citing California Water & Telephone Co. v. County of Los Angeles (1967) 253 Cal.App.2d 16 , 61 Cal.Rptr. 618 ]; accord, Zetterberg v. State Dept. of Public Health (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 657 , 662, 118 Cal.Rptr. 100 [same].) "[M]ootness is not a jurisdictional defect." ( 3 Witkin, Cal