Armstrong Townhomes v. Milgard Manufacturing CA1/2

Filed 3/9/23 Armstrong Townhomes v. Milgard Manufacturing CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

ARMSTRONG TOWNHOMES, LLC et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, A164469

v. (San Francisco County MILGARD Super. Ct. No. CGC-18- MANUFACTURING, INC. et 568770) al., Defendants and Respondents.

Plaintiffs and appellants Armstrong Townhomes, LLC and James E. Roberts-Obayashi Corporation (appellants) appeal from the trial court order granting the motion of respondent Brasscraft Manufacturing Company (Brasscraft) determining a settlement was made in good faith. (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6.) Without reaching the issue of whether an appeal is available to appellants,1 for the reasons set forth below we shall dismiss this appeal as untimely.

1 Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6, subdivision (e) provides that a determination that a settlement was in good faith is reviewable by writ of mandate, in light of which Courts of Appeal are divided as to whether a writ is the sole remedy available. The issue is currently before our Supreme Court, which granted review of the decision in In re Pacific Fertility Cases

1

On October 26, 2021, Brasscraft filed a motion for determination of good faith settlement. It was accompanied by a declaration of Paul Viau, its general contractor, that with its attachments totaled over 200 pages, a declaration that set forth in comprehensive detail the factual setting involved in the settlement. Appellants filed opposition that hardly addressed those facts, and on November 12, 2021, the trial court filed its order determining that the settlement was made in good faith. That same day, November 12, Brasscraft filed and served on appellants a notice of entry of order. On January 19, 2022, 68 days after the notice of entry, appellants filed a notice of appeal, filing it electronically with the trial court and serving it by electronic filing via File and Serve Express e-Service. On May 16, 2022, appellants filed their opening brief, represented by the firm of Sellar Hazard & Lucia (Sellar firm), the same firm that represented them below. Appellants’ opening brief lists Christopher Karic of that firm on the cover, and he wrote the brief. Appellants’ reply brief lists Peter Pritchard on the cover, and he wrote that brief. For some reason, both briefs were served on Christian Lucia, a third lawyer at the Sellar firm. On December 2, Brasscraft filed its respondent’s brief. That brief had an argument contending that appellants’ brief failed to comply in several particulars with the Rules of Court, and cited to various cases in which appellate courts held appellants accountable for such non-compliance, to the