Flores v. Hoagland CA4/1

Filed 9/30/20 Flores v. Hoagland CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

EDUARDO FLORES, D075480

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2017- 00033989-CU-MM-CTL) PETER M. HOAGLAND et al.,

Defendants and Respondents;

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY,

Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Joel R. Wohlfeil, Judge. Affirmed. Eduardo Flores, in pro. per. for Plaintiff and Appellant. Davis, Grass, Goldstein & Finlay and Jeffery W. Grass for Defendants and Respondents Peter M. Hoagland and San Diego Cardiac Center Medical Group, Inc. No appearance for Respondent.

I INTRODUCTION This appeal arises from a medical malpractice action filed by Eduardo Flores in September 2017 alleging Peter Hoagland, M.D., was negligent in providing preoperative cardiac consultation and, as a result, Flores suffered injuries related to a neurosurgical procedure in June 2014. The trial court sustained without leave to amend a demurrer filed by defendants Dr. Hoagland and San Diego Cardiac Center Medical Group, Inc. on the basis that Flores’s action was barred by the three-year statute of limitations set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 340.5. The court entered a judgment of dismissal on May 4, 2018. Instead of timely appealing the judgment, Flores filed numerous motions and ex parte applications with the trial court asking the court to reconsider its demurrer ruling and to accept the filing of a third amended complaint. Eventually, the court entered an order on December 21, 2018, declaring Flores to be a vexatious litigant and imposing a pre-filing order requiring him to obtain leave of court for any future filings. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 391, subd. (b)(2); 397.1, subd. (a).) Flores filed a notice of appeal from the vexatious litigant order. However, his opening brief only challenged the merits of the judgment against him; it did not raise any issue with the prefiling order. Because Flores did not timely appeal the judgment, we have no jurisdiction to consider the issues he raises on appeal. Although a prefiling order is appealable, Flores abandoned any issues related to that order by failing to properly raise them in his briefs. Therefore, we affirm the order.