Preview
1 ALAN HARRIS, Bar No. 146079
DAVID GARRETT, Bar No. 160274 Electronically Filed
2 HARRIS & RUBLE 7/29/2020 5:36 PM
655 N. Central Avenue, 17th Floor Superior Court of California
3 Glendale, CA 91203 County of Stanislaus
Telephone: 323.962.3777 Clerk of the Court
4 Fax No.: 323.962.3004
harrisa@harrisanddruble.com By: Sonia Krohn, Deputy
5 dgarrett@harrisandruble.com
6 David Harris (SBN 215224)
NORTH BAY LAW GROUP
7 116 E. Blithedale Ave., Ste. 2
Mill Valley, CA 94941
8 Telephone: (415) 388-8788
Facsimile: (415) 388-8770
9 dsh@northbaylawgroup.com
10 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Le Sure, Salguero & Crawford
11
12 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
13 COUNTY OF STANISLAUS
14 JERAE PORRAS, MANDI SANCHEZ, JASON LE Case No.: CV-19-000937
SURE, KADIEDRA CRAWFORD, AND JANIE
15 SALGUERO AS AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO
PURSUANT TO THE PRIVATE ATTORNEYS HON. SONNY S. SANDHU,
16 GENERAL ACT (“PAGA”), DEPT. 24
17 Plaintiffs, PLAINTIFF LE SURE, CRAWFORD
AND SALGUERO’S NOTICE OF
18 v. OBJECTIONS TO MOTION TO
VACATE THE COURT’S ORDER
19 CHIPOTLE SERVICES, LLC, a Colorado limited APPROVING PAGA SETTLEMENT
liability company; AND JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO
20 CCP §473 AND CCP §663;
Defendant. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
21 AUTHORITIES
22 Date: August 12, 2020
Time: 8:30 a.m.
23 Judge: Sonny S. Sandhu
Dept.: 24
24 Stanislaus Superior Courthouse
800 11th Street
25 Modesto, CA 95354
26
27
28
1
1
NOTICE OF OBJECTION
2
3 I. INTRODUCTION
4 Plaintiffs Jason Le Sure (“Le Sure”), Kadiedra Crawford (“Crawford”) and Janie Salguero
5 (“Salguero”)(collectively, “Plaintiffs”) hereby object to the filing of Jose Delgado’s Motion to Vacate the
6 Court’s Order Approving the PAGA Settlement and Judgment Pursuant to CCP §473 (the “Section 473
7 Motion”) and Delgado’s Motion to Vacate the Court’s Order Approving the PAGA Settlement and
8 Judgment Pursuant to CCP §663 (the “Section 663 Motion”)(collectively, the “Motions to Vacate”)
9 based upon the following:
10 1. Jose Delgado (“Delgado”) has no standing to file the Motions to Vacate; and
11 2. The Motions to Vacate are moot considering that the Judgment has already been paid,
12 executed and finalized.
13 3. Delgado violated California Rules of Court Rules 2.108 and 3.1113 by filing an 18-page
14 Section 473 Motion that includes text beyond both the 1st and 28th line (see e.g. pages 5,
15 6, 7, 9) and more than 3 pages of single space text and that did not contain block quotes
16 (Mtn. 2:13-6:4). Delgado did not seek leave of Court to file a motion with an extended
17 page count. California Rule of Court Rule 3.1113 provides that “[a] memorandum that
18 exceeds the page limits of these rules must be filed and considered in the same manner as
19 a late-filed paper.”
20 II. ARGUMENT
21 A. Jose Delgado (“Delgado”) has no standing to file the Motions to Vacate
22 Only one who is “legally aggrieved” by a judgment may become a party of record and obtain a
23 right of appeal by moving to vacate the judgment. Bates v. John Deere Co., 148 Cal.App.3d 40 (App. 1
24 Dist. 1983). However, Delgado does not appear to be “legally aggrieved” according to California law.
25 Binding California Supreme Court and other authority provides that Delgado has neither a property
26 interest in this action, the right to notice, nor the right to be heard. See e.g. Williams v. Sup. Ct., 3 Cal.5th
27 531, 547, fn. 4 (2017)(“explaining that ‘PAGA actions and certified class actions have a host
28 of…procedural differences’ and that ‘absent employees do not own a personal claim for PAGA civil
2
1 penalties…and whatever personal claims the absent employees might have for relief are not at stake’”);
2 Medina v. Vander Poel, 523 B.R. 820, 827 (E.D. Cal. 2015) (finding that “the State is the owner of PAGA
3 claims and fine, and that it alone holds a property interest in them.”); Amalgamated Transit Union, Local
4 1756, AFL-CIO v. Sup. Ct., 46 Cal.4th 993, 1003 (2009); (holding that “[PAGA] does not create property
5 rights or any other substantive rights.”); Arias v. Sup. Ct., 46 Cal.4th 969, 986-987 (2009) (“nonparty
6 employees…[are] not…afforded an opportunity to be heard.”).
7 Here, the Labor Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”) has already accepted the settlement
8 check hereunder. See Declaration of Madely Nava of ILYM Group (“Nava Declaration”), ¶3 (Exhibit 3),
9 filed concurrently herewith. PAGA actions can never impair or impede an employee’s rights—rather
10 because of the one-way collateral estoppel applicable to PAGA actions recognized in Arias it can only
11 ever benefit aggrieved employees. In Arias, the California Supreme Court found, that because nonparty
12 aggrieved employees are “not given notice of the action or afforded an opportunity to be heard, [they]
13 would not be bound by the judgment as to remedies other than civil penalties” assessed by the state and
14 for which no private right of action exists. Id. at 987. The “Notice of Settlement” approved by this Court,
15 mailed to each Aggrieved Employee with his/her check, even states: By cashing this check, you will NOT
16 give up any of your individual rights and/or claims. Therefore, Delgado is not “legally aggrieved” and
17 cannot move to vacate.
18 The Court has already correctly determined that Delgado does not have standing to intervene.
19 Now, Delgado is attempting to work around the lack of standing by filing the duplicative Motions to
20 Vacate. The Court should therefore sustain the Objection and deny the Motions to Vacate.
21 Court’s Ruling on Objection No. 1: Sustained Overruled
22
B. The Motions to Vacate are Moot
23
The entire motion and appeal is moot because the judgment has already been paid to the
24
Aggrieved Employees, and funds have been accepted by the LWDA without objection. See Nava
25
Declaration, ¶3. Hild v. Justice's Court, 11 Cal. App. 2d 235, 236 (1936)(when judgment paid, issue of
26
setting aside becomes moot, and “it therefore becomes idle and useless for the court to consume further
27
time in considering the issues presented.”) “It is well settled that an appellate court will decide only
28
3
1 actual controversies. . . [A]n action that originally was based on a justiciable controversy cannot be
2 maintained on appeal if the questions raised therein have become moot by subsequent acts of
3 events.” Finnie v. Town of Tiburon, 199 Cal. App. 3d 1 (1988).
4 The facts of the Hild case are analogous here:
5 The respondents moved to dismiss this appeal on the ground that the issues have become
moot, by virtue of the subsequent levying of the execution and complete satisfaction of the
6 judgment in question. The motion is supported by affidavits to that effect. These affidavits
are not controverted. The issues which are presented on appeal in this proceeding having
7 become moot, it is evident that the motion to dismiss the appeal should be granted. . .
8 In the present case it appears by affidavit, which is not controverted, that the issues
presented on this appeal have become moot and that the writ of mandamus prayed for
9 cannot issue for the reason that the execution sought to be restrained has been levied and
the judgment in question fully satisfied. It therefore becomes idle and useless for the court
10 to consume further time in considering the issues presented by the appeal.
11 Hild, 11 Cal. App. 2d at 236-237. The Hild court continued:
12 In 2 California Jurisprudence, p. 750, § 737, above cited, it is said in that regard: “The
questions presented by an appeal become moot, and the appeal will be dismissed when the
13 judgment has been satisfied.”
14 Id. Here, the Motions to Vacate are moot and will serve no purpose. The Judgment has been paid and
15 finalized. “An appellate court will not review or determine questions on appeal which are moot for the
16 reason that the decision of such questions is idle and serves no useful purpose.” Bley v. Board of Dental
17 Examiners of California, 101 Cal.App. 666; Moore v. Morrison, 130 Cal. 80, 62 P. 268. An action that
18 was originally based on an actual controversy cannot be maintained on appeal if all the questions have
19 become moot by subsequent acts or events. A reversal in such a case would be without practical effect,
20 and the appeal would be dismissed. In such case, a motion should be brought before the appellate court to
21 dismiss the appeal. Hild, 11 Cal. App. 2d at 236-237.
22 Black’s Law Dictionary, Revised Fourth Edition, page 1159, defines the term ‘moot’ as: “A moot
23 case is one which seeks to determine an abstract question which does not arise upon existing facts or
24 rights.” Witkin, California Procedure, Fourth Edition, at page 145, ‘Actions,’ § 82, provides ‘Although a
25 case may originally present an existing controversy, if before decision it has, through act of the parties or
26 other cause, occurring after the commencement of the action, lost that essential character, it becomes a
27 moot case or question which will not be considered by the Court. [Citing Wilson v. Los Angeles County
28 Civil Service Commission, 112 Cal. App. 2d 450, 453 (1952). While Delgado’s counsel may regret that
4
1 they chose not to attend mediation when invited, that does not present an appealable controversy adequate
2 to maintain a Motion to Vacate a finalized judgment.
3 Appellate Courts will consider post-judgment occurrences that cause issues on appeal, or the entire
4 appeal, to become “moot” and thus subject to dismissal. Reserve Insurance Company v. Piscottia (1982)
5 30 Cal. App. 3d 800, 813 (1982); Old National Financial Services v. Seivert, 194 Cal. App. 460, 467
6 (1987). An appeal will be dismissed when a reviewing court has notice of facts that involve only abstract
7 propositions or questions on appeal have become moot. Consolidated Vultee Air Corporation v. United
8 Automobile, 27 Cal 2d 859 (1946); Chantilles v. Lake Forest II Master Homeowners Association, 37 Cal.
9 4th 914 (1995). As the Court said in Vultee, quoting from a United States Supreme Court decision:
10 Pending an appeal from the judgment of a lower court, and without any fault of the
Defendant, an event occurs which renders it impossible for this Court, if it should decide
11 the case in favor of Plaintiff, to grant him any effectual relief whatsoever, the Court will
not proceed to a formal judgment, but will dismiss the appeal … The motion may be made
12 at any time when the ground appears.
13 Vultee, 27 Cal 2d at 859. When the legal interest of an appellant in a controversy has come to an end, by
14 abandonment, involuntary relinquishment, as by a final decree of sale, so that the decision on appeal
15 cannot affect the result of the matter at issue, the appeal becomes moot. Bollotin v. Workman Service
16 Co.,128 Cal. App. 2d 339 (1954); See also, Witkin, supra, at § 649, page 678, which held, ‘Many other
17 cases illustrate the wide variety of events that may make an appeal moot … Goldman v. Santa Barbara,
18 203 Cal. App. 2d 454, 457 (1962)[mandamus to prevent enforce of zoning ordinance against Petitioner's
19 property, moot when Petitioner sold the property.] See also Witkin, supra, at § 654, page 690, which
20 provides: ‘Neither a moot action nor a moot appeal should normally be decided.’
21 See also Kates & Barker, Mootness in Judicial Proceedings, 62 California Law Review 1385, 1386
22 [“The rule that a court will not decide a ‘moot’ case is recognized in virtually every American
23 jurisdiction.”]; Neary v. Regents of University of California, 3 Cal.4th 273, 281 (1992)[“We resolve real
24 disputes between real people.”]; Vernon v. State, 116 Cal.App4th 114, 120 (2004)[“As a general rule, an
25 appeal presenting only abstract or academic questions is subject to dismissal as moot. It is this court's duty
26 to decide actual controversies by a judgment which can be carried into effect, and not to give opinions
27 upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect
28
5
1 the matter in issue in the case before it. When no effective relief can be granted, an appeal is moot and will
2 be dismissed.” People v. Stanley, 2016 WL 5944403 (Cal.), *10.
3 The Judgment has been paid. The LWDA has accepted it substantial multi-million dollar payment.
4 The Aggrieved Employees have been mailed their checks. The Motions to Vacate are moot and will serve
5 no purpose other than to clog the Court’s calendar with unnecessary litigation.
6 Court’s Ruling on Objection No. 2: Sustained Overruled
7
C. The Section 473 Motion Exceeds the Allowable Page Length
8
Delgado violated California Rules of Court Rules 2.108 and 3.1113 by filing an 18-page
9
Section 473 Motion that includes text beyond both the 1st and 28th line (see e.g. pages 5, 6, 7, 9)
10
and more than 3 pages of single space text and that did not contain block quotes (Mtn. 2:13-6:4).
11
Delgado did not seek leave of Court to file a motion with an extended page count. California
12
Rule of Court Rule 3.1113 provides that “[a] memorandum that exceeds the page limits of these
13
rules must be filed and considered in the same manner as a late-filed paper.”
14
15
Court’s Ruling on Objection No. 3: Sustained Overruled
16 III. CONCLUSION
17 For the reasons set forth herein, the Motion to Vacate the Judgment should be denied.
18 DATED: July 29, 2020 Respectfully submitted,
19 HARRIS & RUBLE
NORTH BAY LAW GROUP
20
By: _________________________
21
ALAN HARRIS
22 DAVID HARRIS
DAVID GARRETT
23 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
24
25
26
27
28
6
PROOF OF SERVICE
1
I am an attorney for Plaintiff(s) herein, over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to the within action.
2 My business address is 655 N. Central Ave., 17th Floor, Glendale, CA 91203. On July 29, 2020, I served
the within document(s):
3
NOTICE OF OBJECTIONS TO MOTIONS TO VACATE ORDER AND JUDGMENT
4
I caused such to be delivered by e-mail to:
5
angela.agrusa@us.dlapiper.com
6 levi.heath@us.dlapiper.com
Steve.hernandez@dlapiper.com
7 droepcke@lawdkr.com
jhogue@hoguebelonglaw.com
8 tbelong@hoguebelonglaw.com
9 I am readily familiar with the Firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing.
10 Under that practice, the document(s) would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day
with postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course of business, addressed as follows:
11 Angela C. Agrusa
12 Levi W. Heath
Steve L. Hernández
13 DLA PIPER LLP (US)
2000 Avenue of the Stars
14 Suite 400 North Tower
Los Angeles, California 90067-4704
15
Jeffrey Hogue
16 Tyler Belong
Devon K. Roepcke
17 Hogue & Belong
170 Laurel Street
18 San Diego, CA 92101
19 I declare under penalty of perjury that the above is true and correct. Executed on July 29, 2020, at Los
Angeles, California.
20
21 ______________________
David Garrett
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
Preview
1 ALAN HARRIS, Bar No. 146079 DAVID GARRETT, Bar No. 160274 Electronically Filed 2 HARRIS & RUBLE 7/29/2020 5:36 PM 655 N. Central Avenue, 17th Floor Superior Court of California 3 Glendale, CA 91203 County of Stanislaus Telephone: 323.962.3777 Clerk of the Court 4 Fax No.: 323.962.3004 harrisa@harrisanddruble.com By: Sonia Krohn, Deputy 5 dgarrett@harrisandruble.com 6 David Harris (SBN 215224) NORTH BAY LAW GROUP 7 116 E. Blithedale Ave., Ste. 2 Mill Valley, CA 94941 8 Telephone: (415) 388-8788 Facsimile: (415) 388-8770 9 dsh@northbaylawgroup.com 10 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Le Sure, Salguero & Crawford 11 12 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 13 COUNTY OF STANISLAUS 14 JERAE PORRAS, MANDI SANCHEZ, JASON LE Case No.: CV-19-000937 SURE, KADIEDRA CRAWFORD, AND JANIE 15 SALGUERO AS AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO PURSUANT TO THE PRIVATE ATTORNEYS HON. SONNY S. SANDHU, 16 GENERAL ACT (“PAGA”), DEPT. 24 17 Plaintiffs, PLAINTIFF LE SURE, CRAWFORD AND SALGUERO’S NOTICE OF 18 v. OBJECTIONS TO MOTION TO VACATE THE COURT’S ORDER 19 CHIPOTLE SERVICES, LLC, a Colorado limited APPROVING PAGA SETTLEMENT liability company; AND JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO 20 CCP §473 AND CCP §663; Defendant. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND 21 AUTHORITIES 22 Date: August 12, 2020 Time: 8:30 a.m. 23 Judge: Sonny S. Sandhu Dept.: 24 24 Stanislaus Superior Courthouse 800 11th Street 25 Modesto, CA 95354 26 27 28 1 1 NOTICE OF OBJECTION 2 3 I. INTRODUCTION 4 Plaintiffs Jason Le Sure (“Le Sure”), Kadiedra Crawford (“Crawford”) and Janie Salguero 5 (“Salguero”)(collectively, “Plaintiffs”) hereby object to the filing of Jose Delgado’s Motion to Vacate the 6 Court’s Order Approving the PAGA Settlement and Judgment Pursuant to CCP §473 (the “Section 473 7 Motion”) and Delgado’s Motion to Vacate the Court’s Order Approving the PAGA Settlement and 8 Judgment Pursuant to CCP §663 (the “Section 663 Motion”)(collectively, the “Motions to Vacate”) 9 based upon the following: 10 1. Jose Delgado (“Delgado”) has no standing to file the Motions to Vacate; and 11 2. The Motions to Vacate are moot considering that the Judgment has already been paid, 12 executed and finalized. 13 3. Delgado violated California Rules of Court Rules 2.108 and 3.1113 by filing an 18-page 14 Section 473 Motion that includes text beyond both the 1st and 28th line (see e.g. pages 5, 15 6, 7, 9) and more than 3 pages of single space text and that did not contain block quotes 16 (Mtn. 2:13-6:4). Delgado did not seek leave of Court to file a motion with an extended 17 page count. California Rule of Court Rule 3.1113 provides that “[a] memorandum that 18 exceeds the page limits of these rules must be filed and considered in the same manner as 19 a late-filed paper.” 20 II. ARGUMENT 21 A. Jose Delgado (“Delgado”) has no standing to file the Motions to Vacate 22 Only one who is “legally aggrieved” by a judgment may become a party of record and obtain a 23 right of appeal by moving to vacate the judgment. Bates v. John Deere Co., 148 Cal.App.3d 40 (App. 1 24 Dist. 1983). However, Delgado does not appear to be “legally aggrieved” according to California law. 25 Binding California Supreme Court and other authority provides that Delgado has neither a property 26 interest in this action, the right to notice, nor the right to be heard. See e.g. Williams v. Sup. Ct., 3 Cal.5th 27 531, 547, fn. 4 (2017)(“explaining that ‘PAGA actions and certified class actions have a host 28 of…procedural differences’ and that ‘absent employees do not own a personal claim for PAGA civil 2 1 penalties…and whatever personal claims the absent employees might have for relief are not at stake’”); 2 Medina v. Vander Poel, 523 B.R. 820, 827 (E.D. Cal. 2015) (finding that “the State is the owner of PAGA 3 claims and fine, and that it alone holds a property interest in them.”); Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 4 1756, AFL-CIO v. Sup. Ct., 46 Cal.4th 993, 1003 (2009); (holding that “[PAGA] does not create property 5 rights or any other substantive rights.”); Arias v. Sup. Ct., 46 Cal.4th 969, 986-987 (2009) (“nonparty 6 employees…[are] not…afforded an opportunity to be heard.”). 7 Here, the Labor Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”) has already accepted the settlement 8 check hereunder. See Declaration of Madely Nava of ILYM Group (“Nava Declaration”), ¶3 (Exhibit 3), 9 filed concurrently herewith. PAGA actions can never impair or impede an employee’s rights—rather 10 because of the one-way collateral estoppel applicable to PAGA actions recognized in Arias it can only 11 ever benefit aggrieved employees. In Arias, the California Supreme Court found, that because nonparty 12 aggrieved employees are “not given notice of the action or afforded an opportunity to be heard, [they] 13 would not be bound by the judgment as to remedies other than civil penalties” assessed by the state and 14 for which no private right of action exists. Id. at 987. The “Notice of Settlement” approved by this Court, 15 mailed to each Aggrieved Employee with his/her check, even states: By cashing this check, you will NOT 16 give up any of your individual rights and/or claims. Therefore, Delgado is not “legally aggrieved” and 17 cannot move to vacate. 18 The Court has already correctly determined that Delgado does not have standing to intervene. 19 Now, Delgado is attempting to work around the lack of standing by filing the duplicative Motions to 20 Vacate. The Court should therefore sustain the Objection and deny the Motions to Vacate. 21 Court’s Ruling on Objection No. 1: Sustained Overruled 22 B. The Motions to Vacate are Moot 23 The entire motion and appeal is moot because the judgment has already been paid to the 24 Aggrieved Employees, and funds have been accepted by the LWDA without objection. See Nava 25 Declaration, ¶3. Hild v. Justice's Court, 11 Cal. App. 2d 235, 236 (1936)(when judgment paid, issue of 26 setting aside becomes moot, and “it therefore becomes idle and useless for the court to consume further 27 time in considering the issues presented.”) “It is well settled that an appellate court will decide only 28 3 1 actual controversies. . . [A]n action that originally was based on a justiciable controversy cannot be 2 maintained on appeal if the questions raised therein have become moot by subsequent acts of 3 events.” Finnie v. Town of Tiburon, 199 Cal. App. 3d 1 (1988). 4 The facts of the Hild case are analogous here: 5 The respondents moved to dismiss this appeal on the ground that the issues have become moot, by virtue of the subsequent levying of the execution and complete satisfaction of the 6 judgment in question. The motion is supported by affidavits to that effect. These affidavits are not controverted. The issues which are presented on appeal in this proceeding having 7 become moot, it is evident that the motion to dismiss the appeal should be granted. . . 8 In the present case it appears by affidavit, which is not controverted, that the issues presented on this appeal have become moot and that the writ of mandamus prayed for 9 cannot issue for the reason that the execution sought to be restrained has been levied and the judgment in question fully satisfied. It therefore becomes idle and useless for the court 10 to consume further time in considering the issues presented by the appeal. 11 Hild, 11 Cal. App. 2d at 236-237. The Hild court continued: 12 In 2 California Jurisprudence, p. 750, § 737, above cited, it is said in that regard: “The questions presented by an appeal become moot, and the appeal will be dismissed when the 13 judgment has been satisfied.” 14 Id. Here, the Motions to Vacate are moot and will serve no purpose. The Judgment has been paid and 15 finalized. “An appellate court will not review or determine questions on appeal which are moot for the 16 reason that the decision of such questions is idle and serves no useful purpose.” Bley v. Board of Dental 17 Examiners of California, 101 Cal.App. 666; Moore v. Morrison, 130 Cal. 80, 62 P. 268. An action that 18 was originally based on an actual controversy cannot be maintained on appeal if all the questions have 19 become moot by subsequent acts or events. A reversal in such a case would be without practical effect, 20 and the appeal would be dismissed. In such case, a motion should be brought before the appellate court to 21 dismiss the appeal. Hild, 11 Cal. App. 2d at 236-237. 22 Black’s Law Dictionary, Revised Fourth Edition, page 1159, defines the term ‘moot’ as: “A moot 23 case is one which seeks to determine an abstract question which does not arise upon existing facts or 24 rights.” Witkin, California Procedure, Fourth Edition, at page 145, ‘Actions,’ § 82, provides ‘Although a 25 case may originally present an existing controversy, if before decision it has, through act of the parties or 26 other cause, occurring after the commencement of the action, lost that essential character, it becomes a 27 moot case or question which will not be considered by the Court. [Citing Wilson v. Los Angeles County 28 Civil Service Commission, 112 Cal. App. 2d 450, 453 (1952). While Delgado’s counsel may regret that 4 1 they chose not to attend mediation when invited, that does not present an appealable controversy adequate 2 to maintain a Motion to Vacate a finalized judgment. 3 Appellate Courts will consider post-judgment occurrences that cause issues on appeal, or the entire 4 appeal, to become “moot” and thus subject to dismissal. Reserve Insurance Company v. Piscottia (1982) 5 30 Cal. App. 3d 800, 813 (1982); Old National Financial Services v. Seivert, 194 Cal. App. 460, 467 6 (1987). An appeal will be dismissed when a reviewing court has notice of facts that involve only abstract 7 propositions or questions on appeal have become moot. Consolidated Vultee Air Corporation v. United 8 Automobile, 27 Cal 2d 859 (1946); Chantilles v. Lake Forest II Master Homeowners Association, 37 Cal. 9 4th 914 (1995). As the Court said in Vultee, quoting from a United States Supreme Court decision: 10 Pending an appeal from the judgment of a lower court, and without any fault of the Defendant, an event occurs which renders it impossible for this Court, if it should decide 11 the case in favor of Plaintiff, to grant him any effectual relief whatsoever, the Court will not proceed to a formal judgment, but will dismiss the appeal … The motion may be made 12 at any time when the ground appears. 13 Vultee, 27 Cal 2d at 859. When the legal interest of an appellant in a controversy has come to an end, by 14 abandonment, involuntary relinquishment, as by a final decree of sale, so that the decision on appeal 15 cannot affect the result of the matter at issue, the appeal becomes moot. Bollotin v. Workman Service 16 Co.,128 Cal. App. 2d 339 (1954); See also, Witkin, supra, at § 649, page 678, which held, ‘Many other 17 cases illustrate the wide variety of events that may make an appeal moot … Goldman v. Santa Barbara, 18 203 Cal. App. 2d 454, 457 (1962)[mandamus to prevent enforce of zoning ordinance against Petitioner's 19 property, moot when Petitioner sold the property.] See also Witkin, supra, at § 654, page 690, which 20 provides: ‘Neither a moot action nor a moot appeal should normally be decided.’ 21 See also Kates & Barker, Mootness in Judicial Proceedings, 62 California Law Review 1385, 1386 22 [“The rule that a court will not decide a ‘moot’ case is recognized in virtually every American 23 jurisdiction.”]; Neary v. Regents of University of California, 3 Cal.4th 273, 281 (1992)[“We resolve real 24 disputes between real people.”]; Vernon v. State, 116 Cal.App4th 114, 120 (2004)[“As a general rule, an 25 appeal presenting only abstract or academic questions is subject to dismissal as moot. It is this court's duty 26 to decide actual controversies by a judgment which can be carried into effect, and not to give opinions 27 upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect 28 5 1 the matter in issue in the case before it. When no effective relief can be granted, an appeal is moot and will 2 be dismissed.” People v. Stanley, 2016 WL 5944403 (Cal.), *10. 3 The Judgment has been paid. The LWDA has accepted it substantial multi-million dollar payment. 4 The Aggrieved Employees have been mailed their checks. The Motions to Vacate are moot and will serve 5 no purpose other than to clog the Court’s calendar with unnecessary litigation. 6 Court’s Ruling on Objection No. 2: Sustained Overruled 7 C. The Section 473 Motion Exceeds the Allowable Page Length 8 Delgado violated California Rules of Court Rules 2.108 and 3.1113 by filing an 18-page 9 Section 473 Motion that includes text beyond both the 1st and 28th line (see e.g. pages 5, 6, 7, 9) 10 and more than 3 pages of single space text and that did not contain block quotes (Mtn. 2:13-6:4). 11 Delgado did not seek leave of Court to file a motion with an extended page count. California 12 Rule of Court Rule 3.1113 provides that “[a] memorandum that exceeds the page limits of these 13 rules must be filed and considered in the same manner as a late-filed paper.” 14 15 Court’s Ruling on Objection No. 3: Sustained Overruled 16 III. CONCLUSION 17 For the reasons set forth herein, the Motion to Vacate the Judgment should be denied. 18 DATED: July 29, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 19 HARRIS & RUBLE NORTH BAY LAW GROUP 20 By: _________________________ 21 ALAN HARRIS 22 DAVID HARRIS DAVID GARRETT 23 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 24 25 26 27 28 6 PROOF OF SERVICE 1 I am an attorney for Plaintiff(s) herein, over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to the within action. 2 My business address is 655 N. Central Ave., 17th Floor, Glendale, CA 91203. On July 29, 2020, I served the within document(s): 3 NOTICE OF OBJECTIONS TO MOTIONS TO VACATE ORDER AND JUDGMENT 4 I caused such to be delivered by e-mail to: 5 angela.agrusa@us.dlapiper.com 6 levi.heath@us.dlapiper.com Steve.hernandez@dlapiper.com 7 droepcke@lawdkr.com jhogue@hoguebelonglaw.com 8 tbelong@hoguebelonglaw.com 9 I am readily familiar with the Firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. 10 Under that practice, the document(s) would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course of business, addressed as follows: 11 Angela C. Agrusa 12 Levi W. Heath Steve L. Hernández 13 DLA PIPER LLP (US) 2000 Avenue of the Stars 14 Suite 400 North Tower Los Angeles, California 90067-4704 15 Jeffrey Hogue 16 Tyler Belong Devon K. Roepcke 17 Hogue & Belong 170 Laurel Street 18 San Diego, CA 92101 19 I declare under penalty of perjury that the above is true and correct. Executed on July 29, 2020, at Los Angeles, California. 20 21 ______________________ David Garrett 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7