Piltan v. Novell CA2/8

Filed 3/2/26 Piltan v. Novell CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

BABAK PILTAN, B327357

Plaintiff, Cross-defendant, and Los Angeles County Respondent, Super. Ct. No. 19STCV14650 v.

MARIO NOVELL,

Defendant, Cross-complainant, and Appellant.

APPEAL from a post-judgment order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Steven J. Kleifield, Judge. Appeal dismissed.

Carter Law Firm and Corey Alan Carter Law Offices of William B. Hanley and William B. Hanley for Defendant, Cross- complainant, and Appellant

Joseph A. Hearst for Plaintiff, Cross-defendant, and Respondent.

_____________________________

On February 21, 2023, appellant Mario Novell filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s order denying his motion for attorney fees. Novell indicated on the notice of appeal that the appeal is from an “order after judgment under Code of Civil Procedure, § 904.1(a)(2)”—i.e., an order made after an appealable judgment. In Novell’s civil case information sheet filed March 27, 2023, once more Novell asserted the appeal is from “an order after judgment under Code Civ. Proc., § 904.1(a)(2).” However, he left blank item 1(b) on the form, which asks: “Does the judgment appealed from dispose of all causes of action, including all cross-actions between the parties?” The record reflects that Novell filed a first amended cross-complaint in the action on March 25, 2022, the adjudication of which is not reflected in the final judgment after jury trial. Indeed, in support of his arguments in the opening and reply briefs, Novell acknowledges and repeats that he “brought and never dismissed [his] cross-complaint.” This raises the issue of whether the appeal is premature given Novell’s pending first amended cross-complaint. “Where a complaint and cross-complaint involving the same parties have been filed, there is no final, appealable judgment until both have been resolved.” (ECC Construction, Inc. v. Oak Park Calabasas Homeowners Assn. (2004) 122Cal.App.4th 994, 1002 (ECC).) “A complaint and cross-complaint are treated as independent actions for most purposes, except with respect to the requirement of one final judgment.” (Westamerica Bank v. MBG Industries, Inc.