Bui v. Situ CA3

Filed 3/14/22 Bui v. Situ CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

XUAN BUI, C090944

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 34-2019- 00254400-CU-MC-GDS) v.

JUNE SITU,

Defendant and Respondent.

This appeal presents us with several unusual questions. Suppose a trial court issues an order in a limited civil case that purports to dismiss a related unlimited civil case. In that event, has the unlimited civil case actually been dismissed? Suppose further that one of the parties seeks to appeal the trial court’s purported dismissal. Would the appeal be from a dismissal of the unlimited civil case or from a decision in the limited civil case? The distinction matters because appeals in limited civil cases, unlike appeals in unlimited civil cases, are subject to shorter timelines and must be filed with the superior court’s appellate division rather than the court of appeal.

1

Under this set of facts, we conclude that no case has actually been dismissed, as a trial court’s decision in one case cannot dismiss a distinct case not before the court. We further conclude that any appeal under these facts would be from a decision in a limited civil case, not from a decision in an unlimited civil case. Because these are the circumstances of the appeal before us, and because we lack jurisdiction to hear appeals in limited civil cases that should have been filed in the superior court’s appellate division, we dismiss the appellant’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. BACKGROUND This appeal follows from a series of lawsuits filed in the wake of Tu Van Bui’s death. Following his death, his surviving spouse, June Situ (Situ), filed two actions against his surviving brother, Xuan Bui (Bui). In the first, Situ and her son alleged that they were entitled to the distributions from Tu Van Bui’s life insurance policy. In the second, Situ filed an unlawful detainer action to recover possession of a home in which Bui was then living. Bui, in turn, filed two suits of his own against Situ. In one, he filed an action to quiet title in the disputed property, and in another, he sought, among other things, to dissolve a partnership that he had allegedly operated with Tu Van Bui (the partnership action). Of these four suits, two are particularly important for our purposes— the unlawful detainer action, which was a limited civil case, and the partnership action, which was an unlimited civil case. Before trial in any of these cases, the parties signed and filed a stipulation in the unlawful detainer action. The stipulation, among other things, states: “[Situ] shall pay $10,000 to defendant, Xuan Bui. Xuan Bui upon receipt of payment shall file a Request for Dismissal with prejudice in the matter of Xuan Bui v. June Situ, et al. Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 18-00227845 [i.e., the quiet title action]. June Situ disclaims any and all interest in the proceeds of the life insurance policy for the life of Tu Van Bui. Funds on deposit with the Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 2018-