Filed 6/27/17 Ventura v. Herrera CA5





NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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(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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

MONICA VENTURA,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ROBERT MANUEL HERRERA,

Defendant and Appellant.

F073830

(Super. Ct. No. 2015514)


OPINION

THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. John D. Freeland, Judge.
Robert Manuel Herrera, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Appellant, Robert Manuel Herrera, and respondent, Monica Ventura, were involved in a motor vehicle collision. At the time of the accident, Herrera carried insurance on his vehicle.
Ventura filed a complaint for personal injuries against Herrera alleging that, while she was stopped at an intersection, Herrera “rear ended” her vehicle. Representing himself, Herrera filed an answer denying Ventura’s allegations.
Ventura’s attorney filed a case management statement that he served on David Hirshik, an attorney who was presumably representing Herrera through Herrera’s insurance carrier. The case management conference order notes Hirshik appeared on behalf of Herrera. The order set a date for the next case management conference and directed Herrera to sign a substitution of attorney.
Herrera filed a case management statement on his own behalf. Herrera also filed a motion seeking to represent himself claiming he had a constitutional right to do so.
Approximately one week later, Ventura filed a notice of settlement of the entire case. Ventura served both Hirshik and Herrera with the notice.
Herrera filed motions to stay the action and oppose the settlement.
Before the date set for the hearing on Herrera’s motions, Ventura requested the trial court to dismiss her complaint with prejudice and order all parties to bear their own fees and costs. The trial court entered the dismissal as requested.
Neither party appeared for the hearing on Herrera’s motions. The trial court denied the motions on the ground they were moot due to Ventura’s dismissal of the entire action.
Herrera has appealed from the dismissal of Ventura’s complaint. Although his briefs are confusing and disjointed, Herrera appears to primarily object to the trial court allowing Ventura to settle and dismiss her complaint with prejudice. However, Herrera does not have standing to prosecute this appeal.
DISCUSSION
Only an “aggrieved” party has standing to file an appeal. (Code Civ. Proc., § 902.) A party whose rights or interests are injuriously affected by the judgment is “aggrieved.” (County of Alameda v. Carleson (1971) 5 Cal.3d 730, 737.) These interests must be immediate, pecuniary and substantial, and not a nominal or remote consequence of the judgment. (Ibid.) When the complaint against a party is dismissed, that person is without legal standing as an appellant. (Bates v. John Deere Co. (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 40, 53.)
The issue of whether a party has standing to appeal is a question of law. (IBM Personal Pension Plan v. City and County of San Francisco (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1291, 1299.) “Standing to appeal is ‘jurisdictional and therefore cannot be waived.’” (Marsh v. Mountain Zephyr, Inc. (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 289, 295.) Thus, this court has no jurisdiction to consider an appeal if the party has no standing to appeal.
Here, Ventura dismissed her complaint against Herrera with prejudice, with the parties to bear their own fees and costs. The court did not order Herrera to pay a judgment or Ventura’s attorney fees. Thus, the judgment did not injuriously affect Herrera’s rights or interests. Herrera’s apparent desire to defend himself in court and not settle the case does not confer standing. Accordingly, we do not have jurisdiction and must dismiss the appeal.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed. No costs are awarded.