Franklin & Seidelmann v. Chao CA4/1 (2014) · DecisionDepot
Franklin & Seidelmann v. Chao CA4/1
California Court of Appeal Sep 22, 2014 No. D065195Unpublished
Filed 9/22/14 Franklin & Seidelmann v. Chao CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FRANKLIN & SEIDELMANN, INC., D065195
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2012-00091628- CU-BC-CTL) DAVID J. CHAO et al.,
Defendants and Appellants.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Richard E.L.
Strauss, Judge. Appeal dismissed.
Olins Riviere Coates & Bagula, Mark S. Bagula, Russell F.A. Riviere and Aminta
C. Raffalovich for Defendants and Appellants.
The Grant Law Firm, Miles D. Grant and Alexander J. Kessler for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
David J. Chao, M.D. (Dr. Chao), and David J. Chao, M.D., Inc. (Chao, Inc.)
(together, Defendants), attempt to appeal from an order denying their statutory motion to
vacate orders entering their defaults (Order) in the underlying action filed by Franklin &
Seidelmann, Inc. (Plaintiff). However, the Order is not an appealable order, and
Defendants did not appeal from the related judgment. Thus, we lack jurisdiction and
In February 2012, Plaintiff filed the underlying breach of contract complaint
against Oasis MSO, Inc., individually and doing business as Oasis Sports Medical Group,
Inc. Because Oasis's involvement does not affect the jurisdictional issue on which we
decide this appeal, we will omit further mention of Oasis. In June 2012, Plaintiff filed a
first amended complaint against Defendants.
Following Plaintiff's requests, the clerk entered Dr. Chao's default on August 3,
2012, and Chao, Inc.'s default on August 31, 2012.
By motion and supporting documents filed October 7, 2013, Defendants requested
an order setting aside the defaults and granting leave to defend the action pursuant to
Code of Civil Procedure section 473.5. Plaintiff filed written opposition to Defendants'
motion, and Defendants filed written reply to Plaintiff's opposition.
1 We requested supplemental briefing on the jurisdictional issue. (Gov. Code, § 68081.) We received and have considered a response from Defendants.
2
Two days after Defendants had filed their motion, on October 9, 2013,2 the court
filed a default judgment, awarding Plaintiff $106,983.10 against Defendants. On
November 5, 2013, Plaintiff gave Defendants written notice of entry of the judgment.
Meanwhile, also on November 5, 2013, the court heard oral argument on
Defendants' motion to vacate the entries of default, confirmed the tentative ruling and
denied the motion.
Defendants timely appealed from the Order by notice filed January 3, 2014.
ANALYSIS
Appellate courts have jurisdiction over a direct appeal, like the present one, only
where there is an appealable order or judgment. (Griset v. Fair Political Practices Com.
(2001) 25 Cal.4th 688, 696.) "A trial court's order is appealable when it is made so by
statute." (Ibid.; see Dana Point Safe Harbor Collective v. Superior Court (2010) 51
Cal.4th 1, 5 ["The right to appeal is wholly statutory."], citing Code Civ. Proc., § 904.1.)
When the motion to vacate the default is denied before entry of the default
judgment, "the order denying the motion to vacate the default is not independently
appealable," but rather may be reviewed only "on an appeal from the judgment."
(Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 981.) The issue here is whether we have
jurisdiction to review entry of the default when the denial of the motion to vacate the
2 Plaintiff had submitted the evidence and points and authorities in support of the default judgment almost 10 months earlier in December 2012.
3
default occurs after entry of the default judgment and there is no appeal from the
judgment.
Without mentioning appellate review of the judgment, Defendants gave notice that
they were appealing only from an "order in this case, which was entered on . . .
November 5, 2013" (i.e., the Order), further identifying it as "[a]n order after judgment
under Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1[, subdivision ](a)(2)." However, not every
postjudgment order that follows a final appealable judgment is appealable. (Lakin v.
Watkins Associated Industries (1993) 6 Cal.4th 644, 651 (Lakin).) For a postjudgment
order to be appealable, it must meet two additional prerequisites: (1) "the issues raised
by the appeal from the order must be different from those arising from an appeal from the
judgment"; and (2) " 'the order must either affect the judgment or relate to it by enforcing
it or staying its execution.' " (Id. at pp. 651-652.) Assuming, without deciding, that the
judgment here was appealable, the Order does not meet either of these requirements for
an appealable postjudgment order.
With regard to the first condition, if there were no requirement that new issues be
presented in the postjudgment order, then an undesired result would be to " 'allow[] two
appeals from the same ruling' " — one appeal from the judgment and a second appeal
from the postjudgment order. (Lakin, supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 651.) Here, Defendants
contend that an appeal from the default judgment would have raised only the issue
"whether the trial court erred in entering default judgment," whereas this appeal from the
Order "is limited to the issue of whether notice [of the first amended complaint] was
properly effectuated on [Defendants] and whether the court lacked jurisdiction over
4
[Defendants]." Although presumably the ultimate relief Defendants seek is to vacate the
judgment, in either appeal the only issue to be decided is whether the trial court erred in
entering Defendants' defaults. Therefore, the first condition is not satisfied.
With regard to the second condition, the judgment directed Defendants to pay
Plaintiff $106,983.10, and the Order denied Defendants' request to vacate the defaults
that preceded the judgment. Thus, the Order here " 'neither added to nor subtracted from
the relief granted in the judgment, nor did [it] adjudicate any rights or establish any
liabilities' " of the parties. (Lakin, supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 654.) Pragmatically, even if the
Order were reversed — and we neither decide nor imply that it should be — Defendants
would not receive the ultimate relief they want (that the judgment be vacated), because
the judgment would still be in effect and enforceable. Regardless what happens to the
Order, the judgment filed October 9, 2013, is final and no longer subject to appellate
review. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.104(a)(1) [outside limit to appeal is 180 days
after entry of judgment].)
Defendants argue that the Order is independently appealable as a special order
after a judgment on a statutory motion for relief.3 Defendants' authorities are inapposite,
however, because each case on which Defendants rely satisfies the two Lakin
requirements, in that each involved a postjudgment motion directed to an existing final
3 Defendants' authorities mention only Code of Civil Procedure section 473 as the basis of such a statutory motion. We will assume, without deciding, that the motion Defendants brought under Code of Civil Procedure section 473.5 is also such a statutory motion.
5
judgment. (Shapiro v. Clark (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1128, 1134 (Shapiro) ["motion to
set aside the default and default judgment"]; Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174
Cal.App.4th 1004, 1006 (Doppes) ["motion to set aside the judgment"]; Don v. Cruz
(1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 695, 698 (Don) [" 'motion to vacate and set aside default and
judgment thereon' "].) Here, in contrast, as established ante, the Order fails to satisfy the
Lakin requirements, in that the Order followed from a prejudgment motion filed at a time
before a judgment existed and, thus, was not directed to an existing judgment.
We are aware of our obligation to "liberally construe[]" the notice of appeal. (Cal.
Rules of Court, rule 8.100(a)(2); see In re Joshua S. (2007) 41 Cal.4th 261, 272.)
However, where a notice of appeal unambiguously references a specific document and
fails to mention another, the notice is inadequate to allow review of the other unspecified
document. (See Norman I. Krug Real Estate Investments, Inc. v. Praszker (1990) 220
Cal.App.3d 35, 46-47 [no jurisdiction to review postjudgment order for fees where notice
of appeal unambiguously identified only the judgment]; Shiver, McGrane & Martin v.
Littell (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 1041, 1045 ["Despite the rule favoring liberal
interpretation of notices of appeal, a notice of appeal will not be considered adequate if it
completely omits any reference to the judgment being appealed."].)4 Accordingly, here,
because the notice of appeal unambiguously identifies only the Order and fails to mention
4 Uva v. Evans (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 356, also cited by Defendants, did not involve a liberal construction of the notice of appeal, since there (unlike here) the defendant/appellant's notice expressly identified the judgment that was entered after the defaults were taken. (Id. at p. 360.)
6
the judgment, we are precluded from applying the doctrine of liberal construction in order
to save an appeal from the judgment.5
We are not unsympathetic to Defendants' current inability to obtain appellate
review of the Order, arguably in part due to the delay of the superior court in acting on
the defaults and entering judgment. However, given that Defendants and their counsel
received notice of entry of the judgment on November 5, 2013, and filed their notice of
appeal on January 3, 2014, had they identified the judgment in the notice, they could have
timely preserved their right to appellate review of both the validity of the entries of
default and its effect on the judgment. Indeed, Defendants essentially concede their error
by acknowledging that the Order "can be reviewed on an appeal from the judgment" and
then suggesting that their "appeal is from the default judgment entered on October 9,
2013, notice of which was served on November 5, 2013." In fact, however, Defendants'
appeal is only from the Order and not from the judgment.
5 Even if the notice of appeal had generically described the results of the motion rather than identifying the Order by date, we still could not construe the notice to include an appeal from the judgment, because the motion did not seek any relief related to the judgment — unlike the authorities on which Defendants rely. (Shapiro, supra, 164 Cal.App.4th 1128, [motion to set aside judgment]; Doppes, supra, 174 Cal.App.4th 1004, [motion to set aside judgment]; Don, supra, 131 Cal.App.3d 695, [motion to vacate and set aside judgment].) 7
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
IRION, J.
WE CONCUR:
BENKE, Acting P. J.
MCDONALD, J.
8
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order denying the motion to vacate the default was not an appealable order, and the appellants failed to appeal from the underlying default judgment.
Issues
Whether an order denying a motion to vacate a default, filed before the entry of a default judgment but heard after, is an appealable postjudgment order.
Whether a notice of appeal that unambiguously identifies only a non-appealable order can be liberally construed to include an appeal from the underlying judgment.
Disposition. dismissed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“The Order is not an appealable order, and Defendants did not appeal from the related judgment. Thus, we lack jurisdiction and must dismiss the appeal.”