Filed 7/23/26 Van Taylor v. Little CA2/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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(a). This
opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a).
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
THRIS VAN TAYLOR, et al., B342638
Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No.
v. 22STCV06520)
KATIE L. LITTLE,
Defendant and Respondent.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Kevin C. Brazile, Judge. Appeal dismissed.
Thris Van Taylor, a Law Corporation and Thris Van Taylor
for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Law Offices of Robert S. Altagen and Robert S. Altagen for
Defendant and Respondent.
Attorney Thris Van Taylor (and his firm, Thris Van Taylor,
a Law Corporation; collectively, “Van Taylor”) brought this action
against former client Katie L. Little (and other defendants, not
parties to this appeal) to recover unpaid attorney fees and other
debt. Van Taylor appeals the trial court’s order granting Little’s
motion for judgment on the pleadings as to several causes of
action.1 That order is not appealable. We therefore dismiss the
appeal.
BACKGROUND
Beginning in 2015, Van Taylor represented Little in several
actions and other matters. Three retainer agreements provided
that Van Taylor would be “given a lien on any recovery, as
security for payment of . . . fees and disbursements.” Van Taylor
alleges Little owes at least $200,000 in legal fees. He further
alleges Little agreed to pay this debt using proceeds from selling
her residential property to a third party. She sold the property
but never paid Van Taylor.
Van Taylor brought eight causes of action against Little.
She moved for judgment on the pleadings of the second through
eighth causes of action, but not the first cause of action for breach
of contract. The court granted judgment on the pleadings,
without leave to amend, on the second through eighth causes of
action. Van Taylor timely appealed.
1 In his opening brief, Van Taylor also argues the trial court
erroneously denied his discovery motion. Van Taylor did not
appeal that order, and it is not appealable. (O&C Creditors Group,
LLC v. Stephens & Stephens XII, LLC (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 546, 561.)
2
DISCUSSION
We have “jurisdiction over a direct appeal only when there
is (1) an appealable order or (2) an appealable judgment.” (Griset
v. Fair Political Practices Com. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 688, 696.)
“ ‘[A]n appeal cannot be taken from a judgment that fails to
complete the disposition of all causes of action between the
parties.’ ” (Id. at p. 697.) An order granting a motion for
judgment on the pleadings is not appealable. (Ellerbee v. County
of Los Angeles (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1206, 1213.) “[A]n appeal
from that ruling may [only] be taken from the ultimate
judgment.” (Ibid.) The court did not dispose of all causes of
action against Little, so there is no final, appealable judgment.
Van Taylor argues he may appeal the order granting
judgment on the pleadings under Code of Civil Procedure section
904.1, subdivision (a)(8) (section 904.1(a)(8)). That subdivision
provides an aggrieved party may appeal “[f]rom an interlocutory
judgment, order, or decree, made or entered in an action to
redeem real or personal property from a mortgage thereof, or a
lien thereon, determining the right to redeem and directing an
accounting.” (Ibid.)
Section 904.1(a)(8) does not apply because this is not an
action to redeem real or personal property from a mortgage or
lien. Redemption means a debtor’s right “to repurchase, or
redeem, its property after that property has been involuntarily
sold to satisfy a debt.” (Yancey v. Fink (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d
1334, 1345; accord Lee v. Rich (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 270, 279.) In
other words, in “an action to redeem real or personal property”
from a lien (§ 904.1(a)(8)), the owner of the property seized
pursuant to foreclosure on a lien seeks to buy his or her property
back by satisfying the lien.
3
This suit is not an action to redeem property from a lien.
Van Taylor does not seek the return of property that was seized
pursuant to a lien. Rather, he alleges he had a lien encumbering
Little’s property and seeks damages to satisfy the lien. That his
action for damages involves a lien does not make the case “an
action to redeem real or personal property.” (§ 904.1(a)(8).)
The court’s order granting Little’s motion for judgment on
the pleadings is not appealable under section 904.1(a)(8) or any
other provision. We therefore have no jurisdiction over this
appeal and must dismiss it. (In re Javier G. (2005) 130
Cal.App.4th 1195, 1201.)
4
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed. Respondent Katie L. Little shall
recover her costs on appeal.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
TAMZARIAN, J.
We concur:
ZUKIN, P. J.
MORI, J.
5