Pfeiffer v. Berg CA4/3

Filed 2/20/25 Pfeiffer v. Berg CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

JUSTIN CARL PFEIFFER,

Plaintiff and Appellant, G062407

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2021-01222155)

DAVID H. BERG et.al., OPINION

Defendants and Respondents.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Donald F. Gaffney, Judge. Affirmed. Requests for judicial notice denied. Benowitz Law Corporation and Louis Benowitz for Plaintiff and Appellant. Klinedinst, Dan Lawton, Thomas E. Daugherty, and Aydin Emami for Defendants and Respondents. * * *

Plaintiff Justin Carl Pfeiffer appeals from the judgment entered following the court’s order quashing service of process on defendants David H. Berg and the law firm of Berg & Androphy (collectively Berg), based on a lack of personal jurisdiction. The court based its order on res judicata because there was a prior final order in this case quashing service based on the court’s lack of jurisdiction over these same defendants. We find no error and affirm the judgment. Although Pfeiffer correctly points out that no appealable judgment was entered following the earlier order, the order itself was separately appealable. Pfeiffer’s failure to timely appeal that order allowed it to become final; the order therefore was immune from later appellate challenge.1 FACTS Pfeiffer filed his complaint alleging breach of employment contract and related statutory claims on September 20, 2021. The complaint alleged that, although Berg resided outside the state of California, he had consented to jurisdiction by filing an application to appear pro hac vice in the California litigation that was the subject of Pfeiffer’s employment. In February 2022, Berg moved to quash service on the basis the court lacked jurisdiction over both the individual and the firm. In April 2022, the court granted the motion, concluding Pfeiffer failed to sustain his burden of establishing that Berg had purposely availed