Filed 7/29/21 Lazo v. Keller CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

MARC Y. LAZO et al.,

 Plaintiffs and Appellants,

v.

RICHARD KELLER,

 Defendant and Respondent.

 G058765

(Super. Ct. No. 30-2015-00811823 

consol. with 30-2018-00994566)

 O P I N I O N

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Glenda 

Sanders, Judge. Dismissed. Motion to Dismiss. Granted. Motion for Sanctions. 

Denied.

Kent Salveson; Freedom Law Group and Andrew Phan for Plaintiffs and 

Appellants.

Schwartzberg│Luther, Sagi Schwartzberg; Swarovski Law and Evgeny 

Swarovski for Defendant and Respondent.

* * *
2

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs Marc Y. Lazo and H&L Holdings Group, LLC (plaintiffs) appeal 

from the trial court’s order requiring each of them to separately pay defendant Richard 

Keller $4,900 in discovery sanctions. The trial court’s sanctions order was not 

appealable because neither sanctions award was in an amount that exceeded $5,000 per 

party. (Code Civ. Proc., § 904.1, subd. (a)(12).) We therefore dismiss the instant appeal. 

Although we dismiss plaintiffs’ appeal for lack of jurisdiction, we deny Keller’s motion 

for sanctions against plaintiffs because our record does not show plaintiffs pursued this 

appeal for an improper motive.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

As summarized in one of the separate statements submitted in connection 

with the parties’ discovery dispute,1this lawsuit “arises out of a promissory note entered 

into by Defendant Keller and Plaintiff Lazo in September 2012 and obligations rising 

therefrom, and from an oral agreement between Plaintiffs Lazo and [Jacques] Hattouni 

and Defendant Keller in December of 2012 with respect to a real estate investment” in 

real property located in Huntington Beach and the proceeds of a home equity line of 

credit taken against that property. Lazo, Hattouni, and H&L Holdings Group, LLC, 

among others, filed a lawsuit against Keller arising out of Keller’s “purported lack of 

authority to conduct business without Mr. Lazo’s express consent or that Keller used the 

$250,000 from the Home Equity Line of Credit for such business.” 

1

 The appellate record solely contains documents filed in connection with the parties’ 

discovery dispute, including the court’s orders and plaintiffs’ appeal from the court’s 

order awarding Keller sanctions against them; the record does not contain any pleadings.
3

In February 2019, Keller filed four motions to compel further discovery 

responses from Lazo in Orange County Superior Court case No. 30-2018-00994566.

2

 

Keller also filed four motions to compel further discovery responses from H&L 

Holdings.

In its minute order denying the motions as moot, the trial court summarized 

the course of events leading to its sanctions order as follows: “The motions addressed 

discovery that had been propounded on 8/4/18 and responded to twice. The motions 

were originally set for hearing on 3/28/19. At Lazo’s request, the hearings were 

continued to 4/19/19. On 4/4/19—eight months after the discovery was served, four 

months after the initial responses were reportedly served, two and one-half months after 

the supplemental responses were served, two months after the motions were filed and just 

days before the oppositions were due, Lazo/H&L served a second set of supplemental 

responses to each of the discovery requests. Subsequently, for reasons related to various 

motions to disqualify and other pending motions in the consolidated matters, the motions 

were set for hearing on this date. [¶] Because supplemental responses have been 

provided, the motions are moot as to their substance.”

The trial court nevertheless awarded sanctions in favor of Keller and 

against Lazo and H&L Holdings, explaining: “Based on the failure of both the initial and 

first set of supplemental responses to comply with the requirements of the Discovery Act 

as well as the assertion of meritless objections, the court awards Keller monetary 

sanctions in the amount of $9,800 comprised of 2 hours per motion for counsel’s time [16 

hours x $350 = $5,600] plus 3 hours per motion for the paralegal’s time [24 x $175 = 

$4,200] for a total of $9,800 to be paid as follows: $4,200 by Lazo and $4,200 by H&L. 

The court has reduced the sanctions sought because the 8 motions were repetitive and 

2

That case was later consolidated with Orange County Superior Court case No. 30-

2015-00811823. 
4

involved much cut and pasting which should not have consumed as many hours as those 

indicated.” 

The court later corrected its minute order, nunc pro tunc, to clarify that 

“Marc Lazo and H&L Holdings Group are each ordered to pay $4,900.00 in sanctions, 

not $4,200.” 

Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. Keller filed a motion to dismiss the 

appeal on the ground the trial court’s sanctions order is a nonappealable order. Keller

also filed a motion for sanctions. 

DISCUSSION

“A reviewing court has 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; see Jennings v. Marralle (1994) 8 Cal.4th 

121, 126 [the existence of an appealable order or judgment is a jurisdictional prerequisite 

to an appeal].) Accordingly, if an appeal is taken from an order or judgment that is not 

appealable, the appeal must be dismissed. (Canandaigua Wine Co., Inc. v. County of 

Madera (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 298, 302.)

An order awarding monetary sanctions is not appealable unless the order 

directs payment of monetary sanctions by a party or an attorney for a party in an amount 

that exceeds $5,000. (Code Civ. Proc., § 904.1, subd. (a)(12).) Here, plaintiffs appealed 

from the trial court’s order that directed plaintiffs to each pay $4,900 in monetary 

sanctions to Keller. Because the order directing payment of monetary sanctions by each 

of the plaintiffs does not include an award against a party that exceeds $5,000, there is no 

appealable order and we dismiss the appeal. We express no opinion on the merits of the 

appeal.

Keller also filed a motion for sanctions against plaintiffs and their attorney 

in this court. As we have explained, plaintiffs’ appeal is dismissed because it is taken 
5

from a nonappealable order. We find nothing, however, in the appellate record 

establishing that the appeal was pursued for an improper motive. (In re Marriage of 

Flaherty (1982) 31 Cal.3d 637, 650.) We therefore deny the motion for sanctions.

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed. Respondent shall recover costs on appeal.

FYBEL, J.

WE CONCUR:

O’LEARY, P. J.

MOORE, J.