Dohr v. Lintz CA4/3

Filed 7/31/14 Dohr v. Lintz CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

WILLIAM F. DOHR,

Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and G049660 Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 30-2011-00502087) v. OPINION SUSAN D. LINTZ,

Defendant, Cross-complainant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Robert J. Moss, Judge. Motion to dismiss appeal granted. Appeal dismissed. Richard D. Williams and Lytton, Williams, Messina & Hankin for Defendant, Cross-complainant and Appellant. W. Ernest Mooney and Law Offices of Ernest Mooney for Plaintiff, Cross- defendant and Respondent. * * *

THE COURT:* We dismiss this appeal by a client from a sanction award against the client’s lawyer alone. We follow an extensive body of case law dismissing such appeals when brought only by a client. I This appeal is a piece of complex litigation involving a family corporation, Sterling Homes, which was founded by the defendant’s now deceased father. Plaintiff is defendant’s former husband. Plaintiff initiated the underlying litigation as a declaratory relief action to establish his ownership in corporate stock in Sterling Homes. Defendant cross- complained against plaintiff and some 20 other individuals and entities for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty, alleging that plaintiff and others mismanaged corporate assets in an accounting fraud. In December 2013, the trial court awarded plaintiff $6,600 in monetary sanctions against the law firm of Lytton, Williams & Messina pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 128.71 for filing a frivolous summary judgment motion on defendant’s behalf. Plaintiff had sought sanctions against both defendant and the law firm, but the trial court awarded sanctions only against the law firm. In February 2014, defendant filed a notice of appeal from the sanctions award. The law firm did not file its own notice of appeal. II Defendant asserts that she is entitled to appeal the sanctions award against her attorneys because the pertinent code provision is worded in the disjunctive: Section 904.1(a)(12) provides: “An appeal, other than in a limited civil case, may be taken from