Sharifpour v. Le CA4/3

Filed 1/10/14 Sharifpour v. Le CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

SINA SHARIFPOUR et al.,

Plaintiffs and Appellants, G048249

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2008-00111427)

TAM LE et al., OPINION

Defendants and Respondents.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Franz E. Miller, Judge. Reversed. Randall A. Spencer; and Alexander H. Escandari for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Donna Bader for Defendants and Respondents. * * *

Sina and Shekoufeh Sharifpour obtained a $712,682.89 judgment against Tam and Kim Le. In this appeal, we determine whether the court erred in staying enforcement of the judgment pending appeal, without the requirement of an undertaking. We reverse. I FACTS The facts of this case are set forth more fully in our opinion in Case No. G047481, being filed concurrently herewith. The court ordered that enforcement of the Sharifpours’ judgment against the Les be stayed pending trial against other defendants. The Sharifpours then settled with the remaining defendants. At a November 27, 2012 status conference, the Les informed the court of their intention to file a motion for stay of enforcement of the judgment pending appeal. The court extended the existing stay until January 31, 2013. The Les then filed a motion for a postjudgment setoff of amounts paid by three settling defendants and a stay of enforcement of the judgment. The Les argued the enforcement of the judgment should be stayed until the court ruled on their setoff motion and the appellate proceedings were concluded. The court denied the setoff without prejudice, explaining that it could not grant the request while the appeal from the judgment was pending. It granted the request for a stay of enforcement of the judgment and did not require an undertaking. The court noted in its minute order that the Sharifpours had not filed an opposition to the request for a stay and that it construed their failure to file an opposition as their consent. II DISCUSSION A. Mootness: The Les contend that the appeal from the order granting the stay without an undertaking is moot, assuming this court is about to issue an opinion on the appeal from