Karnazes v.
Filed 2/27/12 Karnazes v. Hartford CA1/2
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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
ELIZABETH
KARNAZES,
Cross-complainant and Appellant,
v.
JOHN J.
HARTFORD,
Cross-defendant and Respondent.
A128486
(San Mateo
County
Super. Ct.
No. CIV458258)
On
May 11, 2010, cross-complainant Elizabeth Karnazes filed a notice purporting to
appeal from judgments and orders entered on “Nov. 21, 2008; Feb. 23, 2009, Mar.
30, 2009, May 18, 26-27, 2009 Sept. 28, 2009, Feb. 23, 2010, Mar. 4, 2010, Mar.
24, 2010, April 14, 2010, May 7, 2010, July 20, 2009.”
We
directed the parties to file supplemental briefing on the question of which
judgments and orders designated in the notice of appeal were appealable and
thus not subject to dismissal. Having
received that briefing, and treating respondent’s brief as including a motion
to dismiss, on September 21, 2011, we filed an order stating, in pertinent
part: “Respondent’s motion to dismiss
the appeal from orders dated November 21, 2008, February 23, 2009, March
30, 2009, May 18, 2009 . . . is granted on the ground that these
orders are not appealable. Respondent’s
motion to dismiss appellant’s appeal from the July 20, 2009, and September
28, 2009 orders is granted because the appeal from these orders is
untimely.” Our September 21, 2011 order is now final.
That
ruling, therefore, left the following six:
(1) May 26-27, 2009;
(2) February 23, 2010;
(3) March 24, 2010; (4) March 24, 2010; (5) April 14, 2010; and (6) May 7, 2010.
“A reviewing court must raise
the issue 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.”
(Jennings v. Marralle (1994)
8 Cal.4th 121, 126.) “An attempt to
appeal from a nonappealable order does not give this court jurisdiction or
authority to review it.” (
Cal. 524, 525.) If an appeal is
purportedly taken from an order that is not statutorily authorized, dismissal
is required. (E.g., Collins v. Corse (1936) 8 Cal.2d 123, 124; Rossi v. Caire (1922) 189 Cal. 507, 508; Art Movers, Inc. v. Ni West,
Inc. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 640, 645; Redevelopment Agency v. Goodman (1975) 53 Cal.App.3d 424, 429;
Procedure (5th ed. 2008) Appeal, § 86, p. 146.)
Because
the issue goes to our jurisdiction to proceed further, we undertake an
independent examination of whether the remaining six orders specified in the
notice of appeal are appealable. And
conclude that they are not.
First,
the only order made or entered “May . . . 26-27, 2009” is the
one dismissing “All Cross-Complaints and Amended Cross-Complaints against John
J. Hartford.” This dismissal was entered
at appellant’s request. It is therefore
not appealable. (H.D. Arnaiz, Ltd. v. County of San Joaquin (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th
1357, 1364-1365 and decisions cited.)
Next
in chronological line is the order made or entered “Feb. 23, 2010.” This was an order directing appellant to pay
respondent “monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,315.00” for failing to make
timely discovery. Because the amount is less than
$5,001, this order is not appealable.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 904.1, subds. (a)(11), (a)(12).) The order made or entered “Mar. 4, 2010” is a reiteration
of the February 23 order.
The
only order made or
entered on “Mar. 24, 2010” was the denial of appellant’s motion to set
aside the voluntary dismissal. Because the dismissal is not appealable,
neither is the order declining to vacate it set it aside. (H.D.
Arnaiz, Ltd. v. County of San Joaquin, supra,
96 Cal.App.4th 1357, 1366-1367; 9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure, supra,
Appeal, § 197, pp. 273-274.) The
only order made or entered on April 14, 2010 is a reiteration of the order made
on March 24.
Finally,
the only order made on May 7, 2010 is a minute
order reciting that appellant’s “renewed Motion To Vacate the Order of
September 29, 2009 and Judgment is DENIED” on the ground that “The moving party
has failed to comply with the requirements of Code of Civ. Proc. Section
1008(b).” This order is not
appealable. (Crotty v. Trader (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 765, 771; see Code Civ.
Proc., § 1008, subd. (g).)
The
purported appeals from all remaining orders are dismissed. The parties shall bear their respective costs
on appeal.
_________________________
Richman,
J.
We concur:
_________________________
Kline, P.J.
_________________________
Haerle, J.
