Pozdro v. Hayward CA1/3

Filed 5/25/16 Pozdro v. Hayward CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THOMAS JOHN POZDRO, Plaintiff and Respondent, A144471

v. (San Mateo County LAURA BERNADETTE HAYWARD, Super. Ct. No. FAM0114986) Defendant and Appellant.

LAURA BERNADETTE HAYWARD, A145431 Plaintiff and Appellant, v. (San Mateo County THOMAS JOHN POZDRO, Super. Ct. No. CIV527654) Defendant and Respondent.

In a dissolution action and related civil action, the former wife appeals orders permitting her ex-husband’s new wife to appear in the actions as counsel pro hac vice. We shall dismiss the appeals. Orders granting pro hac vice applications and denying motions to strike pro hac vice admission are not appealable. Statement of Facts Laura Bernadette Hayward and Thomas John Pozdro were married in March 2004 and are the parents of a son they adopted in 2007. Both parties are employed as commercial pilots, Pozdro with Allegiant Air and Hayward with United Parcel Service. Pozdro moved from California to Las Vegas, Nevada in August 2011 and, in September, petitioned in San Mateo County Superior Court for dissolution of marriage (No.

1

FAM0114986). The dissolution action is ongoing, with pending claims concerning child support and property division. A separate civil action was initiated in March 2014 (No. CIV527654). In the civil action, Hayward sued Pozdro for defamation and related claims arising out of Pozdro’s communications to Hayward’s employer and other third parties accusing her of disability insurance fraud.1 Pozdro remarried in December 2013. He married Crystal Eller, an attorney licensed to practice law in Nevada. In June 2014, Eller filed in the civil case an application to appear on behalf of Pozdro as counsel pro hac vice. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40.) The application was granted, without opposition, in July 2014. Six months later, in January 2015, Eller sought pro hac vice admission in the dissolution proceedings. Her application was granted ex parte. On February 23, 2015, Hayward filed a notice of appeal from the January 20, 2015 order granting pro hac vice admission in the dissolution proceedings. At this time, Hayward also sought to appeal the July 2014 order granting pro hac vice admission in the civil case but this court dismissed the appeal as untimely. In April 2015, Hayward filed a motion in the civil case “to strike the admission pro hac vice” of Eller. The motion to strike was denied in June 2015 and Hayward filed a notice of appeal from that order. Thus, the consolidated appeals at issue are Hayward’s challenge to the order granting Eller’s pro hac vice admission in the dissolution proceedings and the order denying a motion to strike Eller’s pro hac vice admission in the civil case. Discussion Pozdro contends, as a preliminary matter, that the challenged orders are not appealable. The contention is correct, mandating dismissal of the appeals. “Generally, a reviewing court acts in the procedural context of either a direct appeal or a writ proceeding.” (Griset v. Fair Political Practices Com. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 688, 696.) “A reviewing court has jurisdiction over a direct appeal only when there is