Robinson v. Cooper CA2/5

Filed 2/10/16 Robinson v. Cooper CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

STEPHEN P. ROBINSON, B262826

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. EC056563) v.

DONALD E. COOPER et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Mary H. Strobel, Judge. Dismissed. Law Office of Stephen P. Robinson and Stephen P. Robinson, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Donald E. Cooper, in pro. per., for Defendants and Respondents.

Plaintiff, Stephen Robinson, purports to appeal from the December 18, 2014 final statement of decision filed after the completion of one of two phases of a court trial. Plaintiff’s claims arose from a dispute with another attorney, former clients and three lien claimants. We noted that typically a litigant may not appeal from a statement of decision which does not resolve all of the issues between the parties. We have a duty to raise issues concerning our jurisdiction on our own motion. (Jennings v. Marralle (1994) 8 Cal.4th 121, 126; Olson v. Cory (1983) 35 Cal.3d 390, 398.) Because such an order did not appear to be appealable, we issued an order to show cause concerning possible dismissal of the appeal. Plaintiff may not appeal from December 18, 2014 final statement of decision filed after the completion of one of two phases of a court trial. (Allen v. American Honda Motor Co. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 894, 901; In re Marriage of Campi (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 1565, 1570-1571.) Further, the December 18, 2014 final statement of decision did not resolve all of the issues between the parties. An appeal may only be taken from a final judgment or order. (Code Civ. Proc., § 904.1, subd. (a)(1); Griset v. Fair Political Practices Com. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 688, 697; Sullivan v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 288, 304.) Our Supreme Court has explained: “‘[A]n appeal cannot be taken from a judgment that fails to complete the disposition of all causes of action between the parties even if the causes of action disposed of by judgment have been ordered tried separately, or may be characterized as “separate and independent” from those remaining.’ (Morehart v. County of Santa Barbara (1994) 7 Cal.4th 725, 743 [(Morehart)].)” (Griset v. Fair Political Practices Com., supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 697.) Later in 2013, our Supreme Court again emphasized the importance of the final judgment rule: “In Morehart, we explained that the rule codified in this provision, known as the one final judgment rule, precludes an appeal from a judgment disposing of fewer than all the causes of action extant between the parties, even if the remaining causes of action have been severed for trial from those decided by the judgment. ‘A judgment that disposes of fewer than all of the causes of action framed by the pleadings, however, is necessarily “interlocutory” (Code Civ. Proc., § 904.1, subd. (a)), and not yet final, as to any parties