Case Title: Kurwa v. Kislinger

Citation: 

Docket Number: S234617M

State: california

Court: California Supreme Court

Date: 2018-02-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
1 
Filed 1/31/18 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 
) 
BADRUDIN KURWA, 
) 
 
 
) 
 
Plaintiff and Appellant, 
) 
 
 
)  
S234617 
 
v. 
) 
 
 
) 
Ct.App. 2/5 B264641 
MARK B. KISLINGER et al., 
) 
 
 
) 
Los Angeles County 
 
Defendants and Respondents. ) 
Super. Ct. No. KC045216 
 
____________________________________) 
 
ORDER MODIFYING OPINION  
ON THE COURT’S OWN MOTION 
 
THE COURT: 
 
The opinion in this matter, which was filed December 18, 2017, and appears at 
4 Cal.5th 109, is modified as follows: 
 
The second full paragraph on page 115, beginning “Ultimately, we have no 
occasion,” is deleted and the following paragraph is inserted in its place:  Ultimately, 
we have no occasion to resolve the tension between the approaches taken in Hill and 
Vedanta Society because Kurwa’s appeal from the 2010 interlocutory judgment fails 
for a more basic reason:  Kurwa’s dismissal of his defamation cause of action did not 
transform the 2010 interlocutory judgment into an appealable final judgment and 
Kurwa has not argued or attempted to explain why the appellate court should have 
treated the voluntary dismissal as though it were itself an appealable final order.  The 
2010 interlocutory judgment was not a final judgment because it disposed of less than 
 
 
 
2 
all of the causes of action.  (Sullivan v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 288, 
304 [“ ‘A judgment is final “when it terminates the litigation between the parties on 
the merits of the case and leaves nothing to be done but to enforce by execution what 
has been determined.” ’  [Citations.]  [¶]  Finality in this sense not only makes a 
judicial determination a judgment, it also makes that judgment appealable.”]; U.S. 
Financial v. Sullivan (1974) 37 Cal.App.3d 5, 11 [it is improper for the trial court to 
enter a judgment of dismissal if some causes of action remain pending].) 
 
The third full paragraph on page 115, beginning “Kurwa’s dismissal with 
prejudice,” is deleted and the following paragraph is inserted in its place:  In 
appealing from that order, Kurwa does not explain how the dismissal of his 
defamation claim could have retroactively transformed the 2010 interlocutory 
judgment concerning the fiduciary duty claims into one that finally disposed of all 
issues between the parties.  And even if Kurwa’s dismissal with prejudice could have 
retroactively altered the character of the trial court’s 2010 interlocutory judgment, the 
Court of Appeal is correct that the time for appealing that judgment has long since 
expired.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.104(a)(1) [a notice of appeal from a superior 
court judgment must be filed within 60 days of the notice of entry of judgment or 180 
days after judgment, whichever is earlier].)  To accept Kurwa’s argument would 
therefore require us to hold that his dismissal of the defamation claim with prejudice 
not only changed the character of the trial court’s 2010 interlocutory judgment, but 
also delayed the rendering of that judgment until 2015. 
 
These modifications do not affect the judgment.