People v. Golden CA4/1

Filed 11/22/23 P. v. Golden CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE et al., D080456

Plaintiffs,

v. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2021-00021672- CU-MC-CTL) LISA GOLDEN,

Defendant and Appellant;

RICHARD C. GRISWOLD,

Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Ronald F. Frazier, Judge. Dismissed. Lisa Golden, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. Richardson C. Griswold, in pro. per.; Griswold Law and Neil R. Sheaffer for Respondent. No appearance by Plaintiffs.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

Lisa Golden appeals from a March 3, 2022 order authorizing the receiver of her residential property to retain counsel and increase the

receivership certificate.2 In June 2021, the trial court placed Golden’s property in a receivership to remedy municipal code violations. The court originally permitted the receiver to fund a $62,000 receivership certificate but later authorized increases to the certificate, including in its March 3, 2022 order. That order stemmed from a deposition subpoena Golden served on a representative of the receiver. The court granted the receiver’s request for authorization to (1) retain counsel to represent the receiver and his staff, and (2) increase the certificate by $10,000 to pay the counsel’s retainer fee. We requested and received supplemental briefing regarding the appealability of the March 3, 2022 order. (See Jennings v. Marralle (1994) 8 Cal.4th 121, 126 [“A reviewing court must raise the issue [of appealability] on its own initiative whenever a doubt exists as to whether the trial court has entered a final judgment or other order or judgment made appealable by Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1.”].) Concluding the March 3, 2022 order is not appealable, we dismiss this appeal.