National Funding v. Greenberg CA2/7

California Court of Appeal Mar 22, 2021 No. B298916Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court dismissed the appeal because the appellant lacked standing to challenge an order vacating a default judgment entered against his codefendant.

Issues

Does a defendant have standing to appeal an order vacating a default judgment entered against a separate codefendant?
Is an order lifting a stay of litigation against a defendant an appealable order?

Disposition. dismissed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Because Greenberg lacks standing to appeal the order, we dismiss the appeal.”

“A party may not take an appeal based on “error that injuriously affected only nonappealing coparties.””

“The injuries Greenberg identifies are injuries that result from being sued by National Funding. They are not injuries that result from the trial court’s May 6, 2019 order setting aside a default judgment against a different party.”

Filed 3/22/21 National Funding v. Greenberg CA2/7

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN

NATIONAL FUNDING, INC., B298916

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC670735) v.

PHILIP GREENBERG,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Maureen Duffy-Lewis, Judge. Dismissed. Phillip Greenberg, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. Salisian Lee, Neal S. Salisian, H. Han Pai, Glenn Coffman for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_______________________

INTRODUCTION

Philip Greenberg appeals from an order vacating a default judgment against Greenberg’s codefendant Food Equipment Co. Because Greenberg lacks standing to appeal the order, we dismiss the appeal.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On August 2, 2017 National Funding, Inc. sued Food Equipment and Greenberg for breach of a written loan agreement and breach of a written guaranty, respectively. On September 15, 2017 Greenberg filed an answer on behalf of himself and, purportedly, Food Equipment.1 On October 24, 2017 National Funding filed a request for entry of Food Equipment’s default, which the trial court entered the same day. On November 20, 2017 National Funding filed an application for entry of a default judgment against Food Equipment. The trial court entered the Food Equipment default judgment on December 19, 2017. The court also issued a minute order the same day advancing and discharging an order to show cause for National Funding’s failure to appear at a case management conference. On April 2, 2018 National Funding’s counsel filed a declaration “regarding case status and request to resume

National Funding v. Greenberg CA2/7

AI Brief

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SEVEN

NATIONAL FUNDING, INC., B298916

PHILIP GREENBERG,

INTRODUCTION

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

FEUER, J.

AI Brief