American Home Assurance Co. v. State of California
Plaintiff American Home Assurance Company (American Home)[1] and plaintiff-in-intervention Norwood Jones, III (Jones) (collectively plaintiffs) appeal from the judgment entered in favor of defendant, the State of California (State). (Code Civ. Proc., § 904.1, subd. (a)(1).) Plaintiffs also appeal from an order denying their motion for a new trial, an order denying their motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and an order denying their motion to vacate the judgment. Of these three orders, only the order denying the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is appealable (Code Civ. Proc., § 904.1, subd. (a)(4); Ladd v. Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1298, 1300, fn. 1). The order denying the motion for new trial is not appealable, but its propriety may be challenged on appeal from the judgment (Walker v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (2005) 35 Cal.4th 15, 18; Chicago Title Ins. Co. v. AMZ Ins. Services, Inc. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 401, 415; City of Los Angeles v. Glair (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 813, 819-820). Subject to an exception inapplicable here, the order denying a statutory motion to vacate a judgment (Code Civ. Proc., § 663) is not separately appealable. (Clemmer v. Hartford Insurance Co. (1978) 22 Cal.3d 865, 890; 311 South Spring Street Co. v. Department of General Services (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 1009, 1014; City of Los Angeles v. Glair, supra, at pp. 820-823; Payne v. Rader (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1569, 1576; contra, Hollister Convalescent Hosp., Inc. v. Rico (1975) 15 Cal.3d 660, 663; Norager v. Nakamura (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1817, 1819, fn. 1; Howard v. Lufkin (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 297, 300-303; 9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (5th ed. 2008) Appeal, § 200, pp. 275-278.)
Comments on American Home Assurance Co. v. State of California