Hartnett v. San Diego County Office of Education CA4/1 (2013) · DecisionDepot
Hartnett v. San Diego County Office of Education CA4/1
California Court of Appeal Oct 29, 2013 No. D060738Unpublished
Filed 10/29/13 Hartnett v. San Diego County Office of Education CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
RODGER HARTNETT, D060738
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2008-00081583- CU-WT-CTL) SAN DIEGO COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION et al.,
Defendants and Respondents.
APPEAL from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Steven R. Denton, Judge. Appeal dismissed.
Vrevich & Associates and Barry M. Vrevich, Adrianna Cordoba, for Plaintiff and
Appellant.
Higgs, Fletcher & Mack and Steven J. Cologne, John Morris, Victoria E. Fuller,
Sam Sherman, for Defendants and Respondents.
After plaintiff and appellant Rodger Hartnett successfully petitioned for a writ of
mandate seeking reinstatement of his employment with back pay against defendants and
respondents San Diego County Office of Education (Office) and Randolph E. Ward,
Ed.D., Hartnett moved for an award of attorney fees under Code of Civil Procedure
section 1033.5 and the federal Civil Rights Act, title 42 United States Code sections 1983
and 1988 (sections 1983 and 1988). The trial court denied Hartnett's motion. Hartnett
purports to appeal from that postjudgment order, contending the court abused its
on motion for attorney fees following summary judgment].) But the postjudgment orders
in these cases were plainly made after appealable final judgments or judgments otherwise
appealable under Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1, subdivision (a)(1). As we have
concluded in our companion opinion, the May 13, 2011 judgment is not such a judgment.
5
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.
O'ROURKE, J.
WE CONCUR:
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
McDONALD, J.
6
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction, finding that the order denying attorney fees was not made after an appealable final judgment.
Issues
Whether the court has jurisdiction to consider an appeal from a postjudgment order denying attorney fees when the underlying judgment is not appealable.
Disposition. dismissed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“As we explain, we lack jurisdiction to consider Hartnett's appeal because it is not taken from a directly appealable postjudgment order.”