Duncan v. Kihagi CA1/1 ( 2021 )


Menu:
  • Filed 10/20/21 Duncan v. Kihagi CA1/1
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or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.
    IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
    FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
    DIVISION ONE
    DALE DUNCAN et al.,
    Plaintiffs and Respondents,
    A158273
    v.
    ANNE KIHAGI et al.,                                                   (City and County of San
    Francisco Super. Ct.
    Defendants and Appellants.
    No. CGC-15-545655)
    This is the third appeal arising out of respondents’ tenant-harassment
    and wrongful-eviction action against appellants Anne Kihagi, Christina
    Mwangi, and Zoriall LLC. This court previously affirmed a jury verdict
    against appellants that found them liable (Duncan v. Kihagi (2021)
    
    68 Cal.App.5th 519
     (Duncan I), and appellants did not petition our Supreme
    Court for review. Around two months later, we affirmed the award of
    attorney fees. (Duncan v. Kihagi (Oct. 6, 2021, A154678) (Duncan II)
    [nonpub. opn.].)
    This appeal is from two post-trial orders related to stays of enforcement
    of the judgment pending appeal. Specifically, appellants challenge an “Order
    on Judgment Debtors’ Motion for Specification of Reasons” and an “Order
    Sustaining Judgment Creditors’ Objection per Notice of Motion in Support of
    Objection and Objection to the Form, Substance, and Amount, and
    1
    Sufficiency Thereof, of the Judgment Debtors’ Undertaking Served June 10,
    2019.” Respondents Dale Duncan and Marta Munoz Mendoza argued—in
    briefing that predated the filing of Duncan I and Duncan II—that the appeal
    should be dismissed as moot because “[c]ertainly the main appeal will be
    decided and concluded before any further proceedings in the court below
    related to the undertakings at issue[] could be completed after remand on
    this instant appeal.” In their reply brief, appellants argued the appeal was
    not moot because, among other reasons, “no decision on the merits has been
    made on any of the three appeals” that were then pending.
    After the issuance Duncan I and Duncan II, the court wrote to the
    parties stating it was inclined to dismiss the appeal as moot, and provided
    them an opportunity to file objections. No response was filed by the deadline.
    We agree with respondents that there is no effective relief that can be
    granted respondents and the appeal is moot. (Eye Dog Foundation v. State
    Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind (1967) 
    67 Cal.2d 536
    , 541.) We see no
    issue of broad public interest that is likely to recur and thus decline to
    exercise our inherent discretion to resolve the issues presented. (Cf. In re
    William M. (1970) 
    3 Cal.3d 16
    , 23.) As respondents put it, appellants “have
    successfully ‘r[u]n out the clock[,’] and they have kept respondents from
    collecting on the judgment during appellants’ primary appeal. . . . [A]s such,
    there is no need for the relief appellants request.”
    The appeal is dismissed as moot. Respondents shall recover their costs
    on appeal.
    2
    _________________________
    Humes, P. J.
    WE CONCUR:
    _________________________
    Margulies, J.
    _________________________
    Banke, J.
    Duncan et al. v. Kihagi et al. (A158273)
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: A158273

Filed Date: 10/20/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/20/2021