NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

TURNER, P. J.

Defendants, ROC Design, Inc. and Dominique Rocoffort de Vinniere (Mr. Rocoffort), appeal from an October 7, 2010 order denying their motion to disqualify Demler, Armstrong & Rowland, LLP (the law firm). The law firm was retained by defendants' insurer, Lexington Insurance Company, to defend defendants in a lawsuit filed by plaintiff, Bahram Hakimfar. Defendants filed a cross-complaint which named the insurance company as a cross-defendant. On appeal, cross-defendant argues the appeal must be dismissed as moot. We agree as the appeal is moot because the law firm no longer represents defendants.

Plaintiff settled his lawsuit against defendants on April 26, 2011, and the complaint was dismissed with prejudice on May 3, 2011. Defendants acknowledge the underlying lawsuit has been settled. But defendants argue the appeal is not moot because the law firm still represents them on the cross-complaint against plaintiff and cross-defendant. Defendants contend the law firm appeared as counsel for them: on three discovery documents propounded in connection with the cross-complaint; in connection with the July 28 and August 13, 2010 responses to defendants' motion to determine lawyer conflict of interest; and in the August 22, 2010 Declaration of Robert W. Armstrong, a named partner of the law firm.

But the law firm is not counsel for defendants on the cross-complaint. The February 16, 2010 cross-complaint identifies Thomas & Elliott as defendants' counsel. The law firm does not appear as defendants' counsel on the cross-complaint. In addition, defendants were notified on several occasions that the law firm only represented them in connection with the defense against the complaint. Also, at the June 23, 2010 case management conference, Stephen L. Thomas of Thomas & Elliott appeared on behalf of defendants on the complaint and cross-complaint. Cynthia Ralls, an attorney with the law firm, appeared on behalf of ROC Design, Inc. for defendant. After the case management conference, Joseph Tabrisky, Lexington Insurance Company's counsel on the cross-complaint, informed Mr. Thomas that the law firm was handling only the defense of the action. Mr. Tabrisky also stated the law firm was not handling the coverage dispute. In addition, on June 29, 2010, Mr. Armstrong notified defendants by letter that the law firm only represented them on the complaint: "With respect to the substitution of attorney issue, our office has been retained solely for the purpose of providing a defense to the issues raised by Mr. Hakimfar's complaint, and it is our understanding, under the terms of the policy and applicable California law, that the defense by Demler, Armstrong & Rowland could not include a prosecution of an affirmative claim for damages via a cross-complaint or claims being raised in the cross-complaint against Lexington Insurance [Company]." The law firm also notified the trial court and defendants of its mistaken reference as counsel for cross-complainants in Mr. Armstrong's August 22, 2010 declaration. The law firm stated it only represented defendants in connection with the defense against the complaint. Finally, at an August 10, 2010 case management conference, Mr. Thomas, defendants' independent counsel, explained why the law firm had not substituted in for Thomas & Elliott: "We have offered a substitution form with my signature, which I was asked by Mr. Armstrong and Mr. [Bjorn] Green not to send because they do not want to, by my understanding, substitute in for my office because their engagement is limited to the defense of the complaint and it is not intended to include the prosecution of the cross-complaint."

We find the law firm no longer represented defendants after May 3, 2011, when plaintiff dismissed his complaint with prejudice. An appeal is moot where there is neither any actual controversy upon which a judgment could operate nor effective relief which could be granted to any party. (Paul v. Milk Depots, Inc. (1964) 62 Cal.2d 129, 132; Ebensteiner Co., Inc. v. Chadmar Group (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1178.) Here, the law firm no longer represents defendants because plaintiff settled and dismissed his complaint with prejudice. There is neither any actual controversy upon which a judgment could operate nor effective relief which could be granted to any party. Nor does this case raise any issue of public interest or importance. This is not a case where a controversy is so short-lived it will escape normal appellate review. Nothing about this dispute concerns any issue of broad public interest. (Edelstein v. City and County of San Francisco (2002) 29 Cal.4th 164, 172; Chatiles v. Lake Forrest II Master Homeowners Assn. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 914, 921.)

The appeal is dismissed. Cross-defendant, Lexington Insurance Company, shall recover its costs incurred on appeal from cross-complainants, ROC Design, Inc. and Dominque Rocoffort.

MOSK, J. and KRIEGLER, J., concurs.