Robertson v. Larkspur Courts CA1/1

Filed 5/2/23 Robertson v. Larkspur Courts CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

J. MARTIN ROBERTSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, A166818 v. LARKSPUR COURTS et al., (Marin County Super. Ct. No. CIV-1504551) Defendants and Respondents.

This is our fourth opinion in this litigation, which has been pending for over seven years. Rather than resolving the merits of this appeal, however, we dismiss it under the disentitlement doctrine. That doctrine permits us to “dismiss an appeal where the appellant has willfully disobeyed the lower court’s orders or engaged in obstructive tactics,” a standard amply met here. (Gwartz v. Weilert (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 750, 757–758 (Gwartz).) After discovering mold in his apartment, plaintiff J. Martin Robertson sued several entities, including respondents.1 Robertson and respondents entered a stipulation for settlement, and judgment was entered to enforce the

Respondents, all of whom were involved in the management of 1

Robertson’s apartment complex, are Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America, Riverstone Residential Group, LLC, Greystar RS CA, Inc., and Greystar Real Estate Partners, LLC. The other four named defendants never appeared in the litigation.

1

stipulation’s terms. In 2018, we affirmed the judgment, which awarded Robertson $28,000, required the parties to accept a mutual release, and required Robertson to sign a dismissal of the action with prejudice. (Robertson v. Larkspur Courts (May 22, 2018, A152226) [nonpub. opn.] (Robertson I).) We also affirmed the trial court’s order awarding sanctions to respondents, and we awarded respondents their appellate costs. (Ibid.) Two further appeals ensued, the latter of which also resulted in an award of appellate costs to respondents. (Robertson v. Larkspur Courts (Jun. 19, 2019, A154206) [nonpub. opn.] (Robertson II); Robertson v. Larkspur Courts (Oct. 5, 2021, A160942) [nonpub. opn.] (Robertson III).) Respondents paid Robertson the $28,000 they owed him, but he refused to comply with his obligations under the judgment to enter a mutual release and dismiss the lawsuit. He refused to comply with these obligations even though respondents offered not to pursue the sanctions award and both orders awarding appellate costs, no parts of which have ever been paid. In response, the trial court entered an order deeming respondents’ proposed release signed by all the parties and dismissing the case with prejudice. Robertson now appeals from that order, claiming that (1) the trial court lacked authority to deem the release signed; (2) the release was inconsistent with the judgment; and (3) dismissal of the case deprived him of his rights.2 We agree with respondents, however, that the disentitlement doctrine applies, and we therefore grant their motion to dismiss the appeal.