Washington v. Burson CA1/1

Filed 11/26/24 Washington v. Burson CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

MATTHEW WASHINGTON, Plaintiff and Appellant, A168553 v. JAMIE LATRICE BURSON et al., (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. RG17881145) Defendants and Respondents.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Plaintiff Matthew Washington appeals from an August 2023 minute order granting defendant Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District’s (AC Transit) motion to enforce the parties’ settlement agreement pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.2 At the outset of our review, it was apparent that Washington filed his notice of appeal from a nonappealable order. “[A] reviewing court is ‘without jurisdiction to consider an appeal from a nonappealable order, and has the duty to dismiss such an appeal upon its own motion.’ ” (In re Mario C. (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1307.) Accordingly, we requested and received supplemental briefing from the

We resolve this case by memorandum opinion pursuant to the 1

California Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1. 2 Undesignated statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.

1

parties to determine whether we had jurisdiction to review this appeal. We now conclude the appeal must be dismissed for lack of an appealable order. This case arises from a vehicle collision involving a bus owned by AC Transit and a car driven by defendant Jamie Latrice Burson. Washington was a passenger on the bus. He sued Burson, AC Transit, and the bus driver, Elaine Simmons, for negligence. AC Transit and Burson cross-complained against each other for indemnification and other claims. Washington later stipulated to the dismissal of Simmons without prejudice. In 2022, the remaining parties orally agreed to a settlement, whereby Burson and AC Transit would pay Washington a specified sum in exchange for a release of claims. After Washington failed to sign a release, AC Transit moved to enforce the settlement agreement pursuant to section 664.6. The trial court granted the motion. The resulting minute order directed Burson and AC Transit to dismiss their cross-complaints and pay Washington the agreed-upon settlement amounts, set a “compliance” hearing for October 2023, and stated the court would dismiss the action with prejudice “unless good cause is shown why the case should not be dismissed.” This appeal followed. “The right to appeal is wholly statutory.” (Dana Point Safe Harbor Collective v. Superior Court (2010) 51 Cal.4th 1, 5.) Section 904.1 “lists appealable judgments and orders” in civil cases. (Dana Point Safe Harbor Collective, at p. 5.) Section 904.1 codifies “the common law one-final- judgment rule,” which provides that an appeal is only permitted from a final judgment that completely disposes of the matter. (Walton v. Mueller (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 161, 172, fn. 9.) Interlocutory orders generally “ ‘ “are not appealable, but are only ‘reviewable on appeal’ from the final judgment.” ’ ” (Wilson v. County of San Joaquin (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 1, 7.) Section 904.1