California Court of Appeal Apr 23, 2025 No. E083252Unpublished
Filed 4/23/25 Dumas v. Escamilla CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO
TED DUMAS,
Plaintiff and Appellant, E083252
v. (Super.Ct.No. PSC1601974)
MARY ESCAMILLA, OPINION
Defendant and Respondent.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Kira L. Klatchko, Judge.
Dismissed.
Ted I. Dumas, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.
The Law Office of Simon A. Housman, Simon A. Housman; Bochnewich Law
Offices, and Peter M. Bochnewich for Defendant and Respondent.
Plaintiff Ted Dumas appeals from an order granting defendant Mary Escamilla’s
motion to enforce a settlement agreement under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6
1
(unlabeled statutory references are to this code). We conclude that the order is not
appealable, and we accordingly dismiss the appeal.
BACKGROUND
In 2016, Dumas filed a complaint against Escamilla. The complaint is not
judgments and orders” in civil cases. (Dana Point, at p. 5.) Section 904.1 codifies “the
one final judgment rule,” which provides that an appeal is generally only allowable from
a final judgment. (In re Baycol Cases I & II (2011) 51 Cal.4th 751, 756). Prejudgment
orders generally “‘are not appealable but are “reviewable on appeal” from the final
judgment.’” (Doran v. Magan (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 1287, 1292-1293 (Doran).)
Section 904.1 sets forth exceptions to the one final judgment rule and identifies
prejudgment orders that are appealable. (City of Colton v. Singletary (2012) 206
Cal.App.4th 751, 780.) An order granting a motion under section 664.6 is not included
among the appealable prejudgment orders listed in section 904.1. (§ 904.1., subd. (a)(1)-
(14).)
Escamilla argues that the appeal should be dismissed because judgment has not
been entered and the order granting her motion to enforce the settlement agreement is not
appealable. We agree. No judgment has been entered in this case. Nevertheless, in
determining whether an “order is interlocutory and nonappealable, or final and
appealable,” we analyze “the substance and effect of the adjudication, and not the form.”
(Doran, supra, 76 Cal.App.4th at p. 1293; Dana Point, supra, 51 Cal.4th at p. 5.) “If no
5
issues in the action remain for further consideration, the decree is final and appealable.
But if further judicial action is required for a final determination of the rights of the
parties, the decree is interlocutory” and not appealable unless it is otherwise statutorily
appealable. (Doran, at p. 1293.) Dumas does not argue that the trial court’s order
“finally determined the rights of the parties.” (Critzer v. Enos (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th
1242, 1252 (Critzer).) We conclude that it did not.
Much remains left to be resolved between the parties, such as the opening of an
escrow, the execution of a promissory note, the payment of the down payment, and the
exchange of deeds granting certain easements. The court expressly retained jurisdiction
to oversee enforcement of the parties’ compliance with the terms of the settlement. This
consequently is not a case in which the trial court merely failed to enter a formal
judgment but at the same time left no issues for future consideration, allowing us to
“amend [the] order to include a judgment.” (Critzer, supra, 187 Cal.App.4th at p. 1252;
Hines v. Lukes (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1183.) Rather, the January 2024 order
granting Escamilla’s motion under section 664.6 did not finally dispose of all issues and
thus is not appealable.
Dumas’s only argument about appealability is that the order is appealable under
subdivision (a)(2) of section 904.1 (§ 904.1(a)(2)). The provision is inapplicable,
because section 904.1(a)(2) makes appealable “an order made after a judgment.” No
judgment has been entered in this case, so the appealed order is not a postjudgment order.
6
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed. Escamilla shall recover her costs of appeal.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MENETREZ J.
We concur:
RAMIREZ P. J.
McKINSTER J.
7
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that an order granting a motion to enforce a settlement agreement under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 is not an appealable order when no final judgment has been entered and further judicial action is required.
Issues
Whether an order granting a motion to enforce a settlement agreement under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 is an appealable order.
Whether the order constitutes a final judgment under the one final judgment rule.
Disposition. Dismissed.
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“We conclude that the order is not appealable, and we accordingly dismiss the appeal.”
“An order granting a motion under section 664.6 is not included among the appealable prejudgment orders listed in section 904.1.”
“The January 2024 order granting Escamilla’s motion under section 664.6 did not finally dispose of all issues and thus is not appealable.”