Chung & Associates, LLC v. Mendoza CA2/1

Filed 2/18/21 Chung & Associates, LLC v. Mendoza CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

CHUNG & ASSOCIATES, B297304 LLC, (Los Angeles County Plaintiff and Super. Ct. No. BC667815) Respondent,

v.

RICARDO MENDOZA, et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Gregory W. Alarcon, Judge. Dismissed. Law Office of Michael A. Long and Michael A. Long for Defendants and Appellants. The Kernan Law Firm, S. Michael Kernan, and R. Paul Katrinak for Plaintiff and Respondent. ____________________________

The trial court entered an order granting Chung & Associates, LLC’s (C&A) motion for terminating sanctions against Ricardo Mendoza and Xavier Ruffin and striking their answer to C&A’s complaint and their cross-complaint against C&A. Mendoza and Ruffin moved the trial court for an order under Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b) vacating its order granting C&A’s request for terminating sanctions.1 The trial court “fail[ed] to find that a mistake of attorney occurred and denie[d] the motion.” Mendoza and Ruffin then filed a motion under section 1008 asking the trial court to reconsider its order denying their request under section 473(b) to vacate its earlier order striking their answer and cross-complaint. The trial court denied the motion for reconsideration on March 25, 2019. On April 29, 2019, Mendoza and Ruffin filed a notice of appeal, and identified the appeal as from “[a]n order or judgment under [section] 904.1[, subdivision] (a)(3)-(13).” In a motion to dismiss the appeal, C&A argued that none of the orders from which Mendoza and Ruffin purport to appeal are appealable. We agree with C&A and will dismiss the appeal.