Estrada v. Ramirez

Opinion

HASTINGS, J.

This is an appeal from a superior court order imposing discovery sanctions against appellant Felipe Estrada (appellant) and his attorney, Joel R. Bander (Bander). After the sanctions had been ordered, the matter was transferred to the municipal court, where it was ultimately resolved. Despite the fact that final resolution of this matter occurred in the municipal court, appellant lodged this appeal in the Court of Appeal. We conclude that jurisdiction over the appeal properly resides with the appellate division of the superior court and we dismiss.

Statement of the Case

This appeal is being processed pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 17(b), meaning that respondent has failed to file a brief after notice of

[620]

default. Upon failure of respondent to file a brief after a rule 17(b) notice has been mailed, “the court may accept as true the statement of facts in the appellant’s opening brief and, unless the appellant requests oral argument, may submit the case for decision on the record and on the appellant’s opening brief.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 17(b);

County of Lake

v.

Antoni

(1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 1102, 1104 [22 Cal.Rptr.2d 804].)

1

On May 8, 1997, a superior court judge heard three motions that sought to compel appellant to respond to three separate discovery requests. Each motion sought sanctions against appellant and Bander. The superior court judge granted the motions over appellant’s opposition and awarded sanctions in the aggregate of $2,214 against appellant and Bander.

Appellant’s brief advises us that the matter was “removed to the Los Angeles Municipal Court and Judgment was entered by the Municipal Court upon the entire action. . . .” Appellant offers in support of this statement an uncertified copy of an order of dismissal from the municipal court dated September 4, 1998. The brief states: “Appellant filed Notices of Appeal for appeals to be heard either in the Court of Appeal or the Appellate Department of the Superior Court. The Appellate Department of the Superior Court declined to hear this matter insofar as the sanctions order which is being appealed was made by [a] Superior Court Judge . . . prior to the transfer to the Municipal Court.” No documents in the appendix support these statements. Rather, a declaration containing this exact language by Robert Asa Crook, counsel for appellant, is appended to the opening brief.