House v. Skanska USA Civil West California District CA4/2 (2024) · DecisionDepot
House v. Skanska USA Civil West California District CA4/2
California Court of Appeal Jan 5, 2024 No. E079363Unpublished
Filed 1/5/24 House v. Skanska USA Civil West California District CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
ROSA HOUSE,
Plaintiff and Appellant, E079363
v. (Super.Ct.No. CIVDS1204063)
SKANSKA USA CIVIL WEST OPINION CALIFORNIA DISTRICT, INC. et al.,
Defendants and Respondents.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Gilbert G. Ochoa,
Judge. Appeal dismissed.
Rosa House, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Martenson, Hasbrouck & Simon, David L. Lewis and Houston A. Hatfield for
Defendants and Respondents.
1
Rosa House appeals from an order granting defendants’ motion to enforce and to
modify a settlement agreement under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 (unlabeled
statutory references are to this code). We conclude that the order is not appealable, and
we accordingly dismiss the appeal.
BACKGROUND
In August 2014, House filed an amended complaint against Skanska USA Civil
West California District, Inc. and Skanska-Rados (defendants), alleging causes of action
judgments and orders” in civil cases. (Dana Point, supra, at p. 5.) Section 904.1 codifies
4
“the one final judgment rule,” which provides that an appeal is generally only allowable
from a final judgment. (In re Baycol Cases I & II (2011) 51 Cal.4th 751, 756).
Interlocutory orders generally “‘are not appealable, but are only “reviewable on appeal”
from the final judgment.’” (Doran v. Magan (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 1287, 1292-1293
(Doran).) Section 904.1 sets forth exceptions to the one final judgment rule and
identifies interlocutory orders that are appealable. (City of Colton v. Singletary (2012)
206 Cal.App.4th 751, 780.) An order granting a motion under section 664.6 is not
included among the appealable interlocutory orders listed in section 904.1. (§ 904.1.,
subd. (a)(1)-(14).)
Defendants argue that the appeal should be dismissed because the statement of
appealability in House’s opening brief does not comply with the rules of court, because
she fails to explain why the May 19, 2022, order is appealable. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule
8.204(a)(2)(B).) In her opening brief, House contends that the appeal was taken under
section 904.1, subdivision (a)(1), from the trial court’s May 19, 2022, ruling, in which the
court entered “a final judgment.”1 We disagree.
No judgment has been entered in this case. Nevertheless, in determining whether
an “order is interlocutory and nonappealable, or final and appealable,” we analyze “the
substance and effect of the adjudication, and not the form.” (Doran, supra, 76
1 In her reply brief, House contends that the order granting defendants’ section 664.6 motion “is appealable as a final order under [section] 904.1(a)(13) because it constitutes a final disposition of the case.” That provision is inapplicable because it makes appealable “an order granting or denying a special motion to strike under Section 425.16.” (§ 904.1, subd. (a)(13).)
5
Cal.App.4th at p. 1293; Dana Point, supra, 51 Cal.4th at p. 5.) “If no issues in the action
remain for further consideration, the decree is final and appealable. But if further judicial
action is required for a final determination of the rights of the parties, the decree is
interlocutory” and not appealable unless it is otherwise statutorily appealable. (Doran, at
p. 1293.)
The court ordered that it would not dismiss the case unless and until defendants
paid House the agreed amount. Thus, if defendants do not pay House $50,000, then the
case will not be dismissed. From the register of actions included in the record on appeal,
defendants did move for dismissal between the hearing on May 19, 2022, and July 2022,
when House filed her notice of appeal. But the record also reflects that the court has not
yet dismissed the action. Moreover, there is no indication in the record that defendants
paid House $50,000. The issues of both payment and dismissal thus remain unresolved.
Consequently, this is not a case in which the trial court merely failed to enter a formal
judgment but at the same time left no issues for future consideration, allowing us to
“amend [the] order to include a judgment.” (Critzer v. Enos (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th
1242, 1252; Hines v. Lukes (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1183.) Rather, the May 19,
2022, order granting defendants’ motion under section 664.6 did not finally dispose of
the case and consequently is not appealable.
6
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed. Defendants shall recover their costs of appeal.