A.R. v. L.N. CA2/8

Filed 9/6/16 A.R. v. L.N. CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

A.R., B266618

Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. SF001525) v.

L.N.,

Respondent;

FEINBERG, MINDEL, BRANDT & KLEIN, LLP,

Real Party in Interest and Respondent.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Shelley Kaufman, Judge. Affirmed. Weissburg Law Firm and Diane B. Weissburg for Appellant. L.N., in pro. per., for Respondent. Feinberg, Mindel, Brandt & Klein, Wallace S. Fingerett and Taylor Bouchard Wallin for Real Party in Interest and Respondent.

**********

In this paternity action, father A.R. appeals an order setting aside sanctions of $1,000 ordered against respondents mother L.N. and her counsel, Feinberg, Mindel, Brandt & Klein, LLP. This is father’s second appeal from this order. In an unpublished opinion, we dismissed father’s earlier appeal, finding that final judgment had not yet been entered (notwithstanding father’s representations at oral argument that it had), and that the order vacating the sanctions award was not separately appealable. (A.R. v. L.N. (Aug. 10, 2015, B259753).)1 Final judgment was entered following oral argument in the earlier appeal, father filed a notice of appeal from that judgment, and this appeal followed. Respondents contend2 that father has waived any right to appeal the order vacating the sanctions award, and that the appeal is moot, as he has been paid the sanction. We agree, and in any event, find no merit in the contentions raised on appeal, and therefore affirm the orders below. BACKGROUND Some of the following facts are from our earlier unpublished opinion and are provided for context only. (A.R. v. L.N., supra, B259753.) “On July 18, 2011, father commenced this paternity action against mother to establish a parental relationship with the parties’ minor child. The parties entered into a stipulation establishing father’s paternity on September 30, 2011. Thereafter, the litigation became contentious, with numerous modifications of the court’s temporary custody and visitation orders. “The trial on custody took place on April 24, 25, May 1, 2, 15, and 16, 2014. On July 10, 2014, the trial court issued a lengthy statement of decision providing the parties with joint legal and physical custody of the child, and establishing a visitation schedule. The statement of decision reserved decision on the issues of child support and attorney fees. The trial court’s statement of decision specified: ‘Orders for child support and