Modica v. Merin

Opinion

PUGLIA, P. J.

Plaintiff Cynthia Módica purports to appeal from a summary judgment entered in this action for legal malpractice in favor of defendant Mark E. Merin.

The record on appeal reflects that on June 14, 1990, the trial court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Thereafter, defendant prepared and the court signed a formal order granting the motion. Plaintiff appealed, but on September 27, 1990, plaintiff’s appeal was dismissed as from a nonappealable order granting summary judgment.

On November 5,1990, plaintiff filed in the trial court and served a “notice of entry of judgment” which states that “judgment in the above-numbered and entitled action was entered in the Judgment Book of this Court on June 14,1990 in Book No. 28 at Page No. 169 and that the same is now of record and on file in said action.” Plaintiff again filed notice of appeal on November 13, 1990. Plaintiff attached a copy of the “notice of entry of judgment” to the notice of appeal.

This court informed plaintiff that it was considering dismissing her appeal again as from a nonappealable order. Plaintiff’s counsel responded and acknowledged that “it does appear that a judgment of dismissal has not been entered by the trial court, although the ruling reflecting the summary judgment was entered in Book 28 at page 169.”

Plaintiff’s counsel cites two cases,

Donohue

v.

State of California

(1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 795 [224 Cal.Rptr. 57], and

Carroll

v.

Hanover Insurance

[1074]

Co.

(1968) 266 Cal.App.2d 47 [71 Cal.Rptr. 868], as examples we should follow to extricate plaintiff from this impasse. In

Donohue,