Susan Lisa Toch, V. Lynda J. Vargas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Washington
• Decided: December 15, 2025
• Docket: 86442-4
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

SUSAN L. TOCH, No. 86442-4-I Appellant, DIVISION ONE v. UNPUBLISHED OPINION LYNDA J. VARGAS,

Respondent.

MANN, J. — In November 2023, a Whatcom County Superior Court commissioner

granted Susan Toch’s petition for a civil protection order against Lynda Vargas. On

revision, a superior court judge reversed the commissioner and denied the protection

order. Toch appeals the order on revision. But because the underlying commissioner’s

protection order expired on June 1, 2024, we are no longer able to grant effective relief.

We dismiss Toch’s appeal as moot.

I

On September 29, 2023, Toch petitioned for an anti-harassment and stalking

protection order against Vargas, the manager of the apartment complex that Toch lived

in. Toch alleged that Vargas had incited, orchestrated, and aided in victim abuse,

defamation, and continued unrelenting harassment. Toch attached a detailed No. 86442-4-I/2

chronology of events going back to early April 2023. Toch also attached incident

reports she filed with the Bellingham Police Department, photographs, and a declaration

from a healthcare provider.

On October 4, 2023, a Whatcom County Superior Court commissioner granted a

14-day temporary protection order against Vargas, setting a hearing date for October

18, 2023. Toch submitted additional declarations, reports, letters, photographs, and

documents supporting continued incidents involving Vargas. On October 18, 2023, the

court’s commissioner reissued the temporary protection order. The commissioner found

good cause to extend the temporary order because “[t]he parties are involved in an

unlawful detainer case[. And t]he decision in this case will have an impact on the

harassment case.” The protection order was extended to a “date to be set after the

unlawful detainer hearing/trial.” On November 1, 2023, the commissioner again

reissued the temporary order with a hearing date on November 16, 2023.

On November 16, 2023, the court’s commissioner issued a protection order

against Vargas for harassment and stalking, effective until June 1, 2024. The order

required Vargas to have no contact with Toch and to stay at least 1,000 feet away. The

order noted that “[t]he parties now live in different locations and are involved in an

unlawful detainer action.” This order is the final document provided to this court in the

clerk’s papers.

On February 5, 2024, Toch filed with this court a motion for a stay and notice of

discretionary review. The motion attached a January 26, 2024 order from the superior

court on revision denying the harassment and stalking order against Vargas. On

February 26, 2024, Toch filed in the trial court a notice of discretionary review of a

-2- No. 86442-4-I/3

February 7, 2024 order denying reconsideration of the January 26, 2024 order. We

accepted Toch’s filings as a notice of appeal.

II

Toch asks this court to reverse the superior court’s order on revision that

overturned the protection order issued by the court’s commissioner. 1 Because the

underlying commissioner’s protection order expired on June 1, 2024, we can no longer

provide effective relief. This matter is moot.

“A case is moot if a court can no longer provide effective relief.” Maldonado v.

Maldonado, 197 Wn. App. 779, 790, 391 P.3d 546 (2017). The expiration of a

protection order generally means we cannot provide such relief, and a party’s challenge

to the order is thus moot. Price v. Price, 174 Wn. App. 894, 896, 902, 301 P.3d 486

(2013) (“Both protection orders have long expired; thus, [the appellant’s] challenges to

these orders are moot.”).

Here, the November 16, 2023 protection order issued by the court’s

commissioner expired on June 1, 2024. Thus, even if we were to reverse the superior

court’s order denying the protection order on revision, there would no longer be a valid

protection order in place. If the events leading to the original protection order are

1 We recognize that both Toch and Vargas are self-represented. But self-represented litigants

are held to the same standards as attorneys and must comply with the court’s procedural rules. In re Vulnerable Adult Petition of Winter, 12 Wn. App. 2d 815, 844, 460 P.3d 667 (2020). In addition, at the outset of her appeal, Toch cited medical issues and requested extended time to address the court’s requirements under GR 33. Multiple GR 33 accommodations were granted allowing Toch extra time to perfect the record and file her briefs.

-3- No. 86442-4-I/4

ongoing, Toch’s remedy is with the superior court. Because we can no longer provide

effective relief, we dismiss Toch’s appeal as moot. 2

WE CONCUR:

2 Toch has filed numerous motions before this court, including motions to supplement the record

with additional documents, motions for oral argument, and motions to segregate review. All outstanding motions are denied.

-4-