Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. 06CC01593
ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING; NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT
ARONSON, J.
It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on January 30, 2008, be modified as follows:
1. Following the final sentence on page 2 (which concludes “. . . the award has vanished.”), insert a new footnote number 1 and corresponding footnoted text, as follows:
In a petition for rehearing, Humphreys insists the appeal is not moot because H & W levied on one of his bank accounts, “from which they took the entire balance of $2,580.” But Humphreys forfeited this argument by failing to furnish any evidence in the record of this levy. His reliance on the order authorizing H & W to enforce the entire amount of the judgment does not establish the particular levy he complains of — or any other — ever took place. In any event, the relief Humphreys requests for the purported levy is itself moot. He seeks an order compelling H & W to restore the $2,580 — with interest. But doing so would be a useless gesture because the arbitrator’s award, which we have now affirmed in case No. G038298, entitled H & W to much more than this amount, plus the same rate of interest Humphreys presumably seeks. Accordingly, the appeal remains moot and we decline to order a pointless reversal. (See Consolidated, Inc. v. Northbrook Ins. Co. (1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 888, 893 [“it is clear that the reversal of the judgment would serve no useful purpose and would simply constitute an idle act”]; accord, People v. Haskins (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 344, 350 [“The law does not require idle acts”]; see also Cal. Const, art. II, § 13.)
This modification does not change the judgment. The petition for rehearing is DENIED.
WE CONCUR: SILLS, P. J., O’LEARY, J.