Filed 2/24/21 Lee v. Medrano CA2/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

CAROLINE S. LEE,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

DIOSDADO MEDRANO,

Defendant and 

Respondent.

 B305536

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No.

 19STCP03358)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los 

Angeles County, Edward B. Moreton, Judge. Dismissed.

Jack H. Karpeles for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Allan A. Villanueva for Defendant and Respondent.
2

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Caroline S. Lee appeals from the trial court’s order 

dismissing her action. Because there is no signed order of 

dismissal, we will dismiss the appeal.

II. BACKGROUND

Defendant Diosdado Medrano brought a claim before the 

Labor Commissioner against plaintiff, asserting various wage 

and hour claims regarding defendant’s employment at a 

residential care facility owned by plaintiff. On July 9, 2019, the 

Labor Commissioner awarded defendant $313,607.72. Plaintiff 

appealed the decision to the trial court. (See Lab. Code, § 98.2.)

On August 28, 2019, the trial court issued a notice setting 

the case management conference for October 4, 2019. The notice 

advised the parties that “a completed Case Management 

Statement . . . must be filed at least 15 calendar days prior to the 

Case Management Conference.” The notice further warned that 

“if you do not file the Case Management Statement or appear and 

effectively participate at the Case Management Conference, the 

Court may impose sanctions pursuant to [Los Angeles Superior 

Court] Local Rule 3.37, Code of Civil Procedure sections 177.5, 

575.2, 583.150, 583.360 and 583.410, Government Code section 

68608, subdivision (b), and California Rules of Court, rule 2.2 et 

seq.”

On September 26, 2019, defendant filed his case 

management statement. Plaintiff did not file a case management 

statement in advance of the case management conference and did 

not appear at the conference. At the October 4, 2019, hearing on 
3

the case management conference, the trial court set the matter 

for an order to show cause regarding dismissal. The court 

scheduled the order to show cause for November 18, 2019.

On November 18, 2019, plaintiff through her trial counsel 

filed a case management statement. That same day, the trial 

court proceeded with the order to show cause hearing, at which 

both parties appeared. According to a minute order, which is not 

signed, the court found “no Cause shown by [plaintiff]” and 

dismissed plaintiff’s appeal. There is no reporter’s transcript, 

agreed upon statement, or settled statement of the hearing. 

Further, the record includes no signed order of dismissal. On 

January 17, 2020, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal purporting to 

appeal the November 18, 2019, order.

III. DISCUSSION

The right to appeal is statutory. (Hernandez v. Restoration 

Hardware, Inc. (2018) 4 Cal.5th 260, 267; see Code Civ. Proc.,

§ 904.1.) A dismissal order is appealable as a final judgment 

when the order complies with Code of Civil Procedure section 

581d, which states that “[a]ll dismissals ordered by the court 

shall be in the form of a written order signed by the court and 

filed in the action . . . .” (Italics added.) Thus, to be appealable, a 

dismissal order must be signed. (City of Los Angeles v. City of Los 

Angeles Employee Relations Bd. (2016) 7 Cal.App.5th 150, 157; 

Powell v. County of Orange (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1573, 1577–

1578.) An appeal taken from a nonappealable order must be 

dismissed because an appellate court is without jurisdiction to 

entertain it. (Munoz v. Florentine Gardens (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 

1730, 1732.)
4

Plaintiff contends that we should consider the merits of her 

appeal notwithstanding the absence of a signed dismissal order, 

citing Simmons v. Superior Court (1959) 52 Cal.2d 373

(Simmons). We disagree. Simmons is distinguishable as it does 

not discuss Code of Civil Procedure section 581d. Moreover, at 

the time Simmons was decided, the applicable version of Code of 

Civil Procedure section 581d did not require that a dismissal 

order be signed by the trial court for it to be considered an 

appealable judgment. (Compare Stats. 1959, ch. 346, p. 2269, § 1 

[“All dismissals ordered by the court shall be entered upon the 

minutes thereof . . . and such orders when so entered or filed 

shall constitute judgments and be effective for all purposes”], 

with Stats. 1963, ch. 875, p. 2123, § 1 [“All dismissals ordered by 

the court shall be in the form of a written order signed by the 

court and filed in the action . . . and such orders when so filed 

shall constitute judgments and be effective for all purposes”].)

It is undisputed that the November 11, 2019, order 

dismissing plaintiff’s action is not signed. We have no 

jurisdiction to hear plaintiff’s appeal from that order and 

therefore dismiss her appeal. Plaintiff is thus free, if she wishes, 

to pursue whatever means she believes is most expedient to 

perfect her appeal.
5

IV. DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed. In the interests of justice, each 

party is to bear its own costs on appeal.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

KIM, J.

We concur:

BAKER, Acting P. J.

MOOR, J.