Appealability: Expiration Of Restraining Order Did Not Moot Appeal Where Outcome On The Merits Could Determine Whether Prevailing Party Entitled To Attorney’s Fees

However, Merits Order Was Reversed, So No Fees Would Be Awarded To Prior Prevailing Party.

            In Lall-Yepez v. Pukka, Case No. B283975 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Jan. 14, 2019) (unpublished), respondent won a civil harassment restraining order issued under CCP § 527.6 against appellant, who appealed. However, the restraining order expired by its terms, raising the possibility that the appeal was moot. However, there was a mootness exception applicable here: the order’s propriety affected the prevailing party’s eligibility for an award of attorney’s fees given the existence of a fee-shifting statute in this area. (See, e.g., Carson Citizens for Reform v. Kawagoe, 178 Cal.App.4^th 357, 365 (2009); Save Our Residential Environment v. City of West Hollywood, 9 Cal.App.4^th 1745, 1750-1751 (1992); Mapstead v. Anchundo, 63 Cal.App.4^th 246, 277-279 (1998).) Respondent did file a motion for fees of $34,200 under CCP § 527.6(s), which was pending during the appeal. The appellate court found no substantial evidence to support the restraining order such that the merits order was reversed anyway on review—which, by the way, mooted respondent’s fee motion.