Rockmaker v. West Coast Lending CA4/3

Filed 4/3/25 Rockmaker v. West Coast Lending 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

NORMAN ROCKMAKER et al.,

Plaintiffs and Appellants, G063837

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2019- 01050162) WEST COAST LENDING, INC., et al., OPINION

Defendants and Respondents.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Lon F. Hurwitz, Judge. Dismissed. EDGE, Daniel A. Rozenblatt, Seth W. Wiener and Natasha Dandavati for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Garcia Rainey Blank & Bowerbank, Jeffrey M. Blank, John E. Bowerbank and Sean B. Post for Defendants and Respondents.

Norman Rockmaker, Alice Noble, Mike Rozenblatt, and Eric Swindeman appeal from the trial court’s order denying their motion to dismiss their complaint in intervention which asserted both direct and derivative causes of action arising out of a failed limited liability company. Appellants filed their motion as part of a proposed settlement with defendants. The trial court denied appellants’ motion without prejudice. Appellants assert the denial ruling is erroneous and appealable. Specifically, they contend the ruling is appealable under the collateral order doctrine and, alternatively, as an injunction order. We conclude appellants have failed to demonstrate the appealability of the denial ruling, and we dismiss. FACTS I. APPELLANTS’ COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION We recite appellants’ allegations as the factual background for this matter. In 2016, a limited liability company named MO Murrayfield, LLC (the LLC) was formed to acquire and manage various real properties in Missouri, including university dormitories. According to appellants: “To induce [investors, including appellants,] to invest in [the LLC], the