Viani v. Fair Oaks Estates, Inc.

Filed 1/28/26 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

MIRANDA VIANI et al.,

Plaintiffs and Appellants, C102857

v. (Super. Ct. No. 34-2020- 00280046-CU-PO-GDS) FAIR OAKS ESTATES, INC.,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sacramento County, Christopher E. Krueger, Judge. Dismissed.

Fry Law Corporation and Christopher J. Fry for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Low McKinley & Salenko, Donna W. Low and Tiffany C. Sala for Defendant and Respondent.

This is the third appeal from plaintiffs. The first time, after the trial court granted summary adjudication against them on two of their three causes of action -- granting summary adjudication on the claims for negligence and wrongful death, but denying it for breach of contract -- plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the entire action without prejudice and appealed from the voluntary dismissal. In an unpublished opinion, this court dismissed the appeal, explaining that “a voluntary dismissal without prejudice

1

is not a final judgment appealable on the merits.” (Viani v. Fair Oaks Estates, Inc. (Apr. 18, 2023, C094672) (Viani I).) The second time, plaintiffs made a motion in the trial court to set aside their voluntary dismissal, and when the trial court denied the motion, plaintiffs appealed from the denial. This court dismissed the second appeal in an unpublished opinion, explaining that “the trial court’s order denying the motion to set aside the voluntary dismissal was not an appealable order made after a final, appealable judgment.” (Viani v. Fair Oaks Estates, Inc. (Aug. 20, 2024, C099457) (Viani II).) This third time, defendant filed a memorandum of costs in the trial court, plaintiffs moved to strike some of the costs, and the trial court partially granted the motion to strike and entered a judgment of costs from which plaintiffs appeal. Plaintiffs assert that the costs judgment disposed of the matter entirely, thereby allowing them to challenge all orders made during the entire course of the litigation, and specifically, the order granting summary adjudication, an order denying plaintiffs’ motion to set aside the summary adjudication order, and the order denying the motion to set aside the voluntary dismissal. Once again, however, the costs judgment is not a final judgment disposing of the claims raised by plaintiffs in this case. Plaintiffs disposed of their claims when they voluntarily dismissed the entire action without prejudice. Because that voluntary dismissal was not a final judgment, the costs judgment is not appealable as an order made after a final, appealable judgment within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1, subdivision (a)(2). 1 As we will explain, although there may be situations in which a costs judgment should be treated as a final judgment for the purposes of challenging the related costs order and any subsequent orders, here plaintiffs do not challenge the costs order. Instead, they seek a back-door review of the summary adjudication ruling and other matters that we have already held were not reviewable