Maria De Jesus Deniz Murillo v. Ramiro Benicio-zepeda ( 2019 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION ONE
MARIA DE JESUS DENIZ MURILLO, )
) No.78318-1-I
Appellant, )
v. ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION
RAMIRO BENICIO-ZEPEDA,
Respondent. ) FILED: September 16, 2019
______________________________________________________________________________________________ )
PER CURIAM — In linked appeals,1 Maria De Jesus Deniz Murillo
challenges the dismissal without prejudice of her petitions for civil sexual assault
protection orders against two workplace supervisors. The superior court
dismissed the petitions, concluding they were “trumped” by the charges filed in
parallel criminal proceedings but could be refiled “upon the resolution of the
criminal matters.” This court directed appellant to file a supplemental brief
addressing appealability and mootness.
In her supplemental briefs, appellant concedes that the criminal
proceedings have resolved and that these appeals are now moot. She argues,
however, that the appeals present issues of public interest that satisfy the criteria
for review of moot issues. She correctly notes that, in similar circumstances, this
court recently applied the factors identified in Kinci v. Olympic Pipeline, 104 Wn.
App. 338, 16 P.3d 45 (2000) and concluded that “a court could reasonably
1 This appeal is linked with Murillo v. Antonio, No. 78317-3-I.
No. 78318-1-1/2
decide that the . . . factors heavily weigh in favor of proceeding with [a civil
domestic violence protection order] matter before resolution of [the parallel]
criminal case.” Smith v. Smith, 1 Wn. App. 2d 122, 141, 404 P.3d 101 (2017). In
so holding, we noted that “[d]enying a full protection order because of the
defendant’s pending parallel criminal proceedings neither honors the purpose of
the [domestic violence protection order] nor serves the public interest of ensuring
victims of domestic violence have access to an expedited process for receiving a
protection order.” Smith v. Smith, 1 Wn. App. 2d at 140-41. Smith strongly
suggests that the superior court’s dismissal of the petitions due to the parallel
criminal proceedings without considering the Olympic Pipeline factors was error.
Nevertheless, because respondents have not filed briefs on appeal, we decline to
consider review under the criteria for moot appeals.
This appeal is dismissed as moot.
FOR THE COURT:
e~c.
F