Steffenhagen v. Hyundai Motor America CA4/3

Filed 12/9/22 Steffenhagen v. Hyundai Motor America CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

KIMBERLY M. STEFFENHAGEN,

Plaintiff and Appellant, G059703

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2019-01082992)

HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, et al., OPI NION

Defendants and Respondents.

Appeal from orders of the Superior Court of Orange County, Glenn R. Salter, Judge. Dismissed. Law Offices of Roger E. Naghash and Roger E. Naghash for Plaintiff and Appellant. Theta Law Firm, Soheyl Tahsildoost and Ali Ameripour for Defendants and Respondents. * * *

After the parties settled appellant Kimberly M. Steffenhagen’s claims against respondents Hyundai Motor America and Russell Westbrook Hyundai of Anaheim (“Hyundai”), the trial court ordered Hyundai to pay Steffenhagen’s counsel’s fees and costs. Hyundai refused to pay until Steffenhagen’s counsel provided his law firm’s W-9, which Hyundai believed was required to comply with “stringent Internal Revenue Services (‘IRS’) guidelines.” The trial court subsequently ordered Hyundai to deposit the fees and costs with the court, and ordered Steffenhagen’s counsel to provide the W-9 information to the court under seal. After the court reiterated its order, Steffenhagen appealed. As discussed below, we conclude the court’s orders are not appealable, and accordingly we dismiss the appeal. I FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In July 2019, Steffenhagen filed a complaint for damages against Hyundai based on violation of the consumer warranty acts and negligent repair of a Hyundai motor vehicle she purchased. Subsequently, Steffenhagen accepted Hyundai’s offer of compromise pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 998. In exchange for Steffenhagen’s dismissal with prejudice of the entire action, Hyundai offered $38,000, and either $3,000 for fees and costs or a noticed motion seeking fees and costs. Steffenhagen accepted the $38,000 and opted to file a motion for fees and costs. In January 2020, Steffenhagen filed her noticed motion seeking fees and costs. On January 29, 2020, the trial court ordered Hyundai to pay $3,500 in attorney fees and $705 in costs to Steffenhagen’s counsel within 15 days. Over the next several months, Hyundai refused to pay the $4,205 award of fees and costs until Steffenhagen’s counsel provided a completed W-9. Steffenhagen did not provide the W-9 information and instead, among other acts, filed notices of levy and writs of execution against Hyundai. Hyundai filed a motion to quash the notices of levy and writs of execution and for an order clarifying compliance with the trial court’s order