Seabloom v. Wendel CA2/1

California Court of Appeal Sep 29, 2014 No. B248665Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court dismissed the appeal as moot because the trial court's subsequent order requiring a bond rendered the appellant's sole challenge to the initial order ineffective.

Issues

Whether the trial court's failure to require a bond in the initial order appointing a receiver rendered the order void.
Whether the appeal from the initial order is moot given a subsequent order requiring a bond.

Disposition. Dismissed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“As a result, Wendel’s appeal from the May 7, 2013 order based on the failure to direct the posting of a bond is moot.”

“The appeal is dismissed.”

Filed 9/29/14 Seabloom v. Wendel CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

CYNTHIA SEABLOM, B248665

Cross-complainant and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. KC063482) v.

CHRISTINE WENDEL,

Cross-defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Dan Thomas Oki, Judge. Appeal dismissed. ______ Christine Wendel, in pro. per., for Cross-defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Cross-complainant and Respondent. ______

Christine Wendel appealed from the May 7, 2013 order appointing a receiver in a cross-action brought against her by Cynthia Seablom and an underlying action between CPS Signage & Marketing Corporation, a company affiliated with Wendel, and Seablom. Wendel contends that the May 7, 2013 order is void because the trial court did not direct the posting of a bond along with the receiver appointment. The court, however, entered a subsequent order on May 20, 2013, in which it did direct the posting of a bond as a condition of the receiver appointment. Wendel maintains that the court lacked jurisdiction to enter the May 20, 2013 order because she already had filed a notice of appeal from the May 7, 2013 order. But Wendel did not appeal from the May 20, 2013 order and accordingly has no basis to challenge it. The May 20, 2013 order thus is intact and directs the posting of a bond, which is Wendel’s only complaint about the May 7, 2013 order. As a result, Wendel’s appeal from the May 7, 2013 order based on the failure to direct the posting of a bond is moot. DISPOSITION The appeal is dismissed. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

ROTHSCHILD, P. J. We concur:

Seabloom v. Wendel CA2/1

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

CYNTHIA SEABLOM, B248665

CHRISTINE WENDEL,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

JOHNSON, J.

AI Brief