Tetravue, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. CA4/1 (2015) · DecisionDepot
Tetravue, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. CA4/1
California Court of Appeal Dec 23, 2015 No. D067155Unpublished
Filed 12/23/15 Tetravue, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
TETRAVUE, INC., et al., D067155
Plaintiffs and Appellants,
v. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2011-00086115- CU-IC-CTL) ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant and Respondent.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Joan M.
Lewis, Judge. Affirmed.
Tosdal Law Firm and Ty Tosdal and Thomas Tosdal for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton and John T. Brooks and Thomas R. Proctor
for Defendant and Respondent.
In a prior appeal, we held the trial court erred in denying summary judgment in
favor of plaintiffs TetraVue, Inc. and Paul Banks (collectively TetraVue). (TetraVue,
Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company, (July 19, 2013, DO61002) [nonpub.
opn.] (TetraVue I).) We reversed and remanded with instructions to grant summary
judgment in favor of TetraVue and against defendant St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance
Company (St. Paul). We held that, under the liability policy St. Paul issued to TetraVue,
St. Paul had a duty to defend a third party claim against TetraVue.
On remand, TetraVue moved for leave to file an amended complaint to add new
2 Following the trial court's denial of the motion for leave to file an amended complaint, TetraVue filed another lawsuit against St. Paul, which has since been removed to federal court. Consequently, TetraVue also argues that an affirmance will risk forfeiture of its additional claims because the second suit may be barred by res judicata. However, any potential res judicata impact in a separate lawsuit does not impact this court's analysis of the trial court's authority to allow an amended complaint. 5
(b), is not a proper vehicle to remedy an improper or incomplete pleading under these
circumstances. (See State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Pietak (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th
600, 611-612 [explaining that nothing in section 473, subdivision (b), suggests it was
meant as a "catch-all remedy" for all instances of counsel's poor judgment].)3
Significantly, the general principles of a trial court's authority on remittitur as
discussed in relation to section 473, subdivision (a), remain relevant to our analysis of
section 473, subdivision (b). Even if we were to ignore the other issues with application
of section 473, subdivision (b) here, the trial court still lacked authority to allow an
amended complaint because we instructed that judgment be entered in favor of TetraVue
on remand. (See Hampton v. Superior Court, supra, 38 Cal.2d at p. 656.)
Because the trial court lacked authority to take any action but enter judgment as
directed, it properly denied TetraVue's motion for leave to file an amended complaint and
entered judgment for TetraVue.
3 The discretionary provision of section 473, subdivision (b), allows that relief may be granted from a broader range of proceedings than under the mandatory provision of section 473, subdivision (b), which is limited to default, default judgments, or dismissals. (Henderson v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 215, 229.) However, the discretionary provision is still meant to relieve a party from judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against that party. (See Zamora v.Clayborn Contracting Group, Inc. (2002) 28 Cal.4th 249, 254.) In arguing that section 473, subdivision (b), provided the trial court discretion to allow an amended complaint following a reversal in which we instructed the trial court to enter judgment for TetraVue, TetraVue does not clarify the specific court proceeding taken against them from which they are entitled relief. 6
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Respondent to recover costs on appeal.
PRAGER, J.*
WE CONCUR:
BENKE, Acting P. J.
IRION, J.
* Judge of the San Diego Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution. 7
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. When an appellate court reverses a judgment with specific instructions to enter judgment for a party, the trial court lacks jurisdiction to allow the filing of an amended complaint and must strictly follow the appellate mandate.
Issues
Whether a trial court has jurisdiction to grant leave to amend a complaint after an appellate court has remanded the case with specific instructions to enter judgment.
Whether Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivisions (a) or (b), grant a trial court discretion to allow an amendment when the appellate mandate limits the court's authority to entering a specific judgment.
Disposition. Affirmed.
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“When a specific judgment is directed on appeal, the trial court has no jurisdiction beyond entering judgment.”
“It may not "reopen the case on the facts, allow the filing of amended or supplemental pleadings, nor retry the case . . . ."”
“The trial court, therefore, lacked authority to grant leave to file an amended complaint.”