Callahan v. 2241-2249 2nd Street CA1/3

Filed 3/22/21 Callahan v. 2241-2249 2nd Street CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

COLTON CALLAHAN, et al., Cross-complainants and Appellants, A161864

v. (San Francisco County 2241-2249 2nd Street LLC., Super. Ct. No. CGC-18-567657) Cross-defendant and Respondent.

Defendants and cross-complainants, Colton Callahan and Michael Callahan (the Callahans), purport to appeal from an order granting summary judgment of their cross-complaint in favor of plaintiff and cross-defendant, 2241-2249 2nd Street, LLC, (2nd Street). 2nd Street argues the appeal should be dismissed as premature. We agree. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Following a failed business venture to create a cannabis dispensary in Napa, California, Elliot Taylor and Ron Taylor (the Taylors) and 2nd Street sued the Callahans.1 In the operative pleading, the third amended complaint (“TAC”), the Taylors and 2nd Street allege various causes of action and seek

1 Ron Taylor is the managing member of 2nd Street.

1

declaratory relief. The Callahans filed a third amended cross-complaint (“cross-complaint”) to the TAC seeking damages and declaratory relief against the Taylors and 2nd Street.2 The TAC and cross-complaint involve the same contracts and transactions with respect to the parties interests’ in real property located at 2241-2449 2nd Street in Napa, California (the Property), the acquisition of a cannabis dispensary permit (the Permit), and the right to operate a cannabis retail business at the Property. 2nd Street filed a motion for summary judgment as to the cross- complaint arguing, among other things, that the Callahans had no interest in the Property. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of 2nd Street, finding in relevant part that the undisputed evidence established that the only document purporting to support the Callahans’s interest in the Property was invalid under the statute of frauds. The Callahans have appealed this ruling, despite the fact that no judgment has been entered by the trial court. DISCUSSION In California, an appeal may be taken from a final judgment, but not an interlocutory judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., § 904.1, subd. (a)(1).) The California Supreme Court has explained that this rule, also known as the “the one final judgment rule, precludes an appeal from a judgment disposing of fewer than all the causes of action extant between the parties, even if the remaining causes of action have been severed for trial from those decided by the judgment.” (Kurwa v. Kislinger (2013) 57 Cal.4th 1097, 1101.) “ ‘It is not the form of the decree but the substance and effect of the adjudication which