Sheehy v. Chicago Title Ins. Co.

Filed 1/21/25

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

BRIAN L. SHEEHY, as Trustee, etc.,

Plaintiff and Appellant, G064229

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2020-01146716)

CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE OPINION COMPANY,

Defendant and Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Andre De La Cruz, Judge. Dismissed. Miller Barondess, James L. Goldman; Voss Cook & Thel, and James G. Damon for Plaintiff and Appellant. Garrett & Tully, Ryan C. Squire, Ani Grigoryan; Fidelity Nations Law Group, and Paul McGeough for Defendant and Respondent. * * *

This case presents us with an unusual situation: an appellant appealing directly from an order on a motion in limine, and with published authority supporting the proposition that such an appeal is possible. We dismiss the appeal and publish this opinion to express our disagreement with that authority and our view that this type of order is properly reviewed only by writ petition or by appeal from the final judgment. STATEMENT OF FACTS Plaintiff Brian L. Sheehy sued his title insurer, defendant Chicago Title Insurance Company in connection with a dispute over an easement affecting plaintiff’s property. In response to defendant’s demand, plaintiff designated his expert witnesses, including an attorney who was designated to testify regarding defendant’s handling of plaintiff’s claim. This attorney previously represented defendant as claims counsel. As trial approached, defendant filed several motions in limine, including a motion to exclude plaintiff’s expert on the ground that the State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct prohibited plaintiff’s expert from testifying adversely to defendant. (See Rules Prof. Conduct, rule 1.9.) The trial court granted the motion. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiff filed a petition for a writ of mandate with this court on this issue, which we summarily denied. Simultaneously, plaintiff appealed from the trial court’s ruling, citing Brand v. 20th Century Insurance Company/21st Century Insurance Company (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 594 (Brand) for the proposition that the order was appealable. Upon the filing of plaintiff’s civil case information statement in the appeal, this court stayed preparation of the record, indicated the court