Mitchell v. Wigeri Van Edema CA3

Filed 11/1/22 Mitchell v. Wigeri Van Edema CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Yolo) ----

KRISTA MITCHELL, C094757

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. CV20210248)

v.

DAWN WIGERI VAN EDEMA et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

Plaintiff Krista Mitchell sued defendants Dawn Wigeri Van Edema, et al. (“defendants”) for “menacing conduct” that interfered with the enjoyment of her rental dwelling. The trial court granted defendants’ special motion to strike the complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, California’s anti-SLAPP statute.1 Later, the trial court awarded attorney’s fees and costs to defendants. On appeal, plaintiff

1 SLAPP is an acronym for “ ‘strategic lawsuits against public participation.’ ” (Navellier v. Sletten (2002) 29 Cal.4th 82, 85; see id. at p. 85, fn. 1.)

1

challenges the trial court’s rulings. Regarding the appeal of the anti-SLAPP motion, we agree with defendants that we must dismiss it as untimely. And while plaintiff’s appeal from the fees and costs order was timely, that was a separate appealable “order made after a judgment” (i.e., the anti-SLAPP order) that does not cure the untimeliness of the notice of appeal as to the anti-SLAPP order. (See Ellis Law Group, LLP v. Nevada City Sugar Loaf Properties, LLC (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 244, 251.) We will affirm the fees and costs order because plaintiff provides no argument on it. I. BACKGROUND In February 2021, plaintiff filed a civil action for damages against defendants. Defendants filed an anti-SLAPP motion. By order filed on May 10, 2021, the trial court granted defendants’ motion. Defendants served plaintiff with a “Notice of Entry of Judgment or Order” form (attaching the May 10 order) on May 14, 2021. On August 5, 2021, in a document captioned “JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL WITH AWARD OF FEES AND COSTS,” the trial court awarded over $57,000 in attorney’s fees and costs to defendants. On August 27, 2021, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal, indicating she was appealing the fees and costs order entered on August 5, 2021. II. DISCUSSION Plaintiff asks us to vacate the trial court’s ruling granting the anti-SLAPP motion, and the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees and costs. But plaintiff’s briefing on appeal contains no discussion of the trial court’s fees and costs award. Accordingly, plaintiff has forfeited any challenge to that award. (See In re Marriage of Falcone & Fyke (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 814, 830.) Defendants: (1) address the merits of plaintiff’s arguments on appeal regarding the anti-SLAPP motion; and (2) contend the appeal “is untimely and should be dismissed.” Plaintiff provides no response to defendant’s “untimeliness” argument in her reply brief.