Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1738164.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 23:12:50+00:00

Document:
HASSELL v. Yelp, Inc., Appellant.
Dawn HASSELL et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. Ava BIRD, Defendant; Yelp, Inc., Appellant.
Counsel for Appellant: David Wright Tremaine, Thomas R. Burke, Oakland, and Deborah A. Adler, San Francisco. Counsel for Respondents: Duckworth PetersLebowitz Olivier, Monique Olivier, San Francisco.
Respondents Dawn Hassell and the Hassell Law Group (Hassell) 1 obtained a judgment holding defendant Ava Bird liable for defamation and requiring her to remove defamatory reviews she posted about Hassell on Yelp.com, a Web site owned by appellant Yelp, Inc. (Yelp). The judgment also contains an order requiring Yelp to remove Bird's defamatory reviews from its Web site (the removal order). Yelp, who was not a party in the defamation action, filed a motion to vacate the judgment which the trial court denied.
On appeal, the parties raise numerous issues relating to the judgment against Bird, and the subsequent removal order. As to those issues, we conclude as follows: (1) Yelp is not “aggrieved” by the defamation judgment entered against Bird, but it is “aggrieved” by the removal order; (2) Yelp's trial court motion to vacate was not cognizable under Code of Civil Procedure section 663 2 ; (3) Yelp has standing to challenge the validity of the removal order as an “aggrieved party,” having brought a nonstatutory motion to vacate that order; (4) Yelp's due process rights were not violated because of its lack of prior notice and a hearing on the removal order request; (5) the removal order does not violate Yelp's First Amendment rights to the extent that it requires Yelp to remove Bird's defamatory reviews; (6) to the extent it purports to cover statements other than Bird's defamatory reviews, the removal order is an overbroad unconstitutional prior restraint on speech; and (7) Yelp's immunity from suit under the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (the CDA), 47 United States Code section 230, does not extend to the removal order.
Therefore, although we affirm the order denying Yelp's motion to vacate the judgment, we will remand this case so that the trial court can narrow the terms of the removal order in a manner consistent with this decision.
Hassell's April 2013 complaint against Bird arose out of Hassell's legal representation of Bird for a brief period during the summer of 2012. The complaint alleged the following facts about that representation: Bird met with Hassell in July to discuss a personal injury she had recently sustained. On August 20, Bird signed an attorney-client fee agreement. However, on September 13, 2012, Hassell withdrew from representing Bird because they had trouble communicating with her and she expressed dissatisfaction with them. During the 25 days that Hassell represented Bird, Hassell had at least two communications with Allstate Insurance Company about Bird's injury claim and notified Bird about those communications via e-mail. Hassell also had dozens of direct communications with Bird by e-mail and phone and at least one in-person meeting. When legal representation was withdrawn, Bird had 21 months before the expiration of the statute of limitations on her personal injury claim, and had not lost any rights or claims relating to her injury.
Hassell further alleged that, on January 28, 2013, Bird published a review on Yelp.com about her experience with Hassell (the January 2013 review). Hassell attempted to contact Bird by phone to discuss the publication, but she failed to return the call, so the firm sent her an e-mail “requesting she remove the factual inaccuracies and defamatory remarks from her Yelp.com written statement.” In an e-mail response, Bird made derogatory comments about Dawn Hassell's legal skills, refused to remove the January 2013 review, and threatened to post an updated review and to have another review posted by someone else.
According to the complaint, on February 6, 2013, Bird or her agent created a “fake Yelp identity, using the pseudonym ‘J.D.,’ from Alameda,” to post another negative review about the Hassell firm on Yelp.com (the February 2013 review). Hassell believed that Bird was “J.D.” because Hassell never represented a client with the initials J.D., and because the February 2013 review was posted shortly after the January 2013 review and used similar language.
In their complaint, Hassell alleged causes of action against Bird for defamation, trade libel, false light invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. In a fifth cause of action for injunctive relief, Hassell alleged that Bird's ongoing wrongful acts were the direct and proximate cause of substantial pecuniary losses and irreparable injury to Hassell's business reputation and good will, and that they were entitled to an injunction because there was no adequate remedy at law to compensate them for their continuing injuries.
The allegedly defamatory statements about Hassell that were posted on Yelp.com were attached as exhibits to the Hassell complaint.
On April 17, 2013, Hassell served Bird by substitute service with a summons, the complaint, an alternative resolution package, a civil case information sheet, a statement of damages and an attorney letter. On June 18, 2013, Hassell filed a request for the superior court clerk to enter a default against Bird, who had failed to answer Hassell's complaint. Default was entered and filed on July 11, 2013.
On November 1, 2013, Hassell filed a notice of hearing on their application for default judgment and request for injunctive relief. The application was supported by a “plaintiffs' summary of the case,” which provided additional details about matters alleged in the complaint, and also described a third review that Bird allegedly posted on Yelp.com on April 29, 2013 (the April 2013 review).
Hassell's case summary also argued the merits of its case. In support of its request for injunctive relief, Hassell argued that “once the trier of fact has determined [Bird] made defamatory statements,” the court would have authority to issue an injunction, and that if the same showing could be made at a prove-up hearing, a comparable injunction would be proper. Hassell reasoned that denying injunctive relief after a default prove-up hearing would mean a plaintiff can be forced to suffer defamatory harm so long as the defendant refuses to answer the complaint. Hassell requested that the injunction contain a provision requiring Yelp to remove the defamatory reviews in the event that Bird failed to do so, which was likely in light of her history of “flaunting” California's court system.
Through declarations from Dawn Hassell and another Hassell attorney named Andrew Haling, Hassell filed extensive documentary evidence, including Bird's attorney-client agreement, correspondence between Hassell and Bird, evidence of damages, and comments about Hassell that were posted on Yelp.com., including the April 2013 review that Hassell identified in its case summary as another defamatory statement by Bird.
“Plaintiffs' Request for Injunctive Relief is Granted. Defendant AVA BIRD is ordered to remove each and every defamatory review published or caused to be published by her about plaintiffs HASSELL LAW GROUP and DAWN HASSELL from [Y]elp.com and from anywhere else they appear on the internet within 5 business days of the date of the court's order.
“Defendant AVA BIRD, her agents, officers, employees or representatives, or anyone acting on her behalf, are further enjoined from publishing or causing to be published any written reviews, commentary, or descriptions of DAWN HASSELL or the HASSELL LAW GROUP on Yelp.com or any other internet location or website.
On May 23, 2014, Yelp filed a notice of motion and motion to set aside and vacate the Bird judgment pursuant to section 663 on the “grounds that the legal basis for the decision is not consistent with or supported by the facts or applicable law.” In its supporting memorandum, Yelp alleged it had standing to bring the motion as an “aggrieved party,” even though it was a nonparty in the action. Yelp then argued the trial court was required to vacate the Bird judgment because: (1) Hassell's failure to name Yelp as a party defendant violated Yelp's right to due process; (2) Yelp was immune from liability for posting Bird's reviews pursuant to the CDA, 47 United States Code section 230; (3) the judgment violated section 580 by awarding relief that Hassell did not request in their complaint; and (4) the judgment subverted Bird's First Amendment rights by suppressing speech that Hassell failed to prove was defamatory.
On July 23, 2014, Yelp filed a re-notice of its motion to vacate and set aside the Bird judgment. Yelp's re-notice did not reference section 663 or any other statutory ground for the motion, but explicitly relied on the memorandum and other pleadings Yelp had already filed in support of its motion to vacate. Furthermore, Yelp stated that its motion was being re-noticed in the same department as previously noticed, pursuant to the instruction of the presiding judge of the superior court.
On August 27, 2014, Judge Goldsmith held a hearing on Yelp's motion to vacate, accepted evidence, entertained arguments and then took the matter under submission. On September 29, 2014, the court filed an order denying Yelp's motion to set aside and vacate the judgment (the September 2014 order). The September 2014 order contains two sets of findings.
In its opening brief on appeal, Yelp requests that this court “reverse and vacate the trial court's judgment.” Yelp appears to assume that the denial of its motion to vacate conferred standing on it to appeal the entire Bird judgment. At the same time, however, Yelp strenuously insists that it is not and never has been a “party” in this case. Adding to the confusion, Hassell contends that the trial court did not have “jurisdiction” to hear Yelp's section 663 motion, to which Yelp responds that courts have inherent power to set aside void judgments. To sort these issues and clarify the scope of this appeal, we begin by considering the two prerequisites for appellate standing.
Applying this test, we conclude that Yelp is not aggrieved by the default judgment against Bird. Awarding Hassell damages and injunctive relief with respect to Bird's defamatory remarks did not cause Yelp to suffer a substantial immediate pecuniary injury of any kind. Bird was the party aggrieved by that judgment and she elected not to appeal. On the other hand, the judgment contains an additional provision which expressly requires Yelp to remove Bird's reviews from Yelp.com. This removal order directly affects the operation of Yelp's business and potentially carries some pecuniary consequence. Thus, Yelp was aggrieved by the removal order for purposes of establishing standing.
Throughout proceedings in the trial court and on appeal, Yelp has endeavored to blur the distinction between the judgment entered against Bird which awarded Hassell damages and injunctive relief, and the removal order in the judgment which directs Yelp to effectuate the injunction against Bird. For example, Yelp asserted trial court standing to bring a motion to vacate on the ground that “Yelp's rights and interests to maintain its Site as it deems appropriate [were] injuriously affected by the Judgment.” However, this claimed injury did not result from the judgment itself, but only from the removal order requiring Yelp to effectuate the injunction against Bird. To the extent Yelp has ever meant to contend that an injunction requiring Bird to remove defamatory statements from the Internet injuriously affects Yelp, we disagree. Yelp's claimed interest in maintaining Web site as it deems appropriate does not include the right to second-guess a final court judgment which establishes that statements by a third party are defamatory and thus unprotected by the First Amendment.
In the present case, Yelp used its motion to vacate to seek relief that was not available under section 663. First, Yelp requested that the entire judgment be vacated, not that it be corrected to conform to the findings of the trier of fact. Second, many of Yelp's arguments were direct or indirect challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the Bird judgment. In addition to the fact that Yelp was not aggrieved by the default judgment against Bird, these claims were not cognizable in the context of a section 663 motion to vacate. Third, both Yelp and Hassell improperly used section 663 to seek additional findings of fact in order to resolve their collateral disagreement about whether Yelp became Bird's aider and abettor after the judgment was entered.
In the present case, Yelp's agent for service of process was served with the judgment on January 28, 2014. Yelp then waited 116 days before filing a notice of motion and motion to vacate the Bird judgment. Thus, Yelp not only failed to comply with the 15–day time limit for filing a notice of intent to file a motion to vacate, its tardy decision to bring the motion precluded the trial court from ruling on it within the statutory time period applicable to section 663 motions.
Unlike the 15–day filing rule in section 663a, subdivision (a), which expressly applies only to a “party,” the time limitation in subdivision (b) restricts the “power of the court to rule” on a section 663 motion, and uses mandatory language to set an outside limit of 60 days from the date the moving party was served with written notice of entry of judgment. Strictly enforcing this 60–day limitation is consistent with the function of this specific type of statutory motion, which is to afford the decision maker a mechanism for the speedy rectification of an easily correctible error in the judgment. (See Forman, supra, 173 Cal.App.3d at p. 203.) Yelp does not cite any authority excepting it from the 60–day rule set forth in section 663a, subdivision (b).
Yelp takes the view that an aggrieved nonparty should be allowed to file any type of statutory motion to vacate a judgment within a reasonable time not exceeding six months from the entry of judgment. This argument ignores the authority of section 663a itself, and is based on an apparent misreading of Plaza Hollister, supra, 72 Cal.App.4th 1. The Plaza Hollister court held that the appellant in that case had filed an invalid section 663 motion in the trial court, but that it had appellate standing pursuant to a nonstatutory motion to vacate that was filed within a reasonable time after entry of judgment. (Plaza Hollister, at p. 19.) Plaza Hollister reinforces our conclusion that, under the circumstances presented here, Yelp was not entitled to relief under section 663.
Like the motion at issue in Plaza Hollister, supra, 72 Cal.App.4th 1, Yelp's trial court motion to vacate was not based solely on section 663; Yelp also sought to invoke the court's inherent power to vacate a void judgment. Indeed, as discussed in our factual summary, Yelp's re-notice of its motion deleted any reference to section 663. Furthermore, Yelp's trial court pleadings repeatedly characterized the Bird judgment as void.
This type of nonstatutory motion was the correct mechanism for Yelp to employ to challenge a portion of the Bird judgment on the ground that it contains an allegedly void removal order. Furthermore, treating Yelp's motion as a nonstatutory motion eliminates Hassell's concerns about its timeliness. “ ‘[A] judgment or order, which is in fact void for want of jurisdiction, but the invalidity of which does not appear from the judgment roll or record, may be set aside on motion within a reasonable time after its entry, not exceeding the [six month] time limit prescribed by [former] section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure; and an independent suit in equity to set aside the judgment or order is not necessary. [Citations.]’ ” (Plaza Hollister, supra, 72 Cal.App.4th at p. 19.) Here, Hassell argues that Yelp's motion was not filed within a reasonable time, but the record does not compel that conclusion.
The considerations outlined above lead to the following conclusions regarding Yelp's standing to appeal: Yelp is aggrieved by the removal order directing Yelp to remove Bird's defamatory reviews from Yelp.com; Yelp became a party of record in this case by filing a nonstatutory motion to vacate the allegedly void order within a reasonable time after entry of the judgment; and, therefore, Yelp has standing to appeal the removal order provision contained in the Bird judgment.
The substantive issue raised by this appeal is whether the trial court had the legal authority to make the removal order directing Yelp to remove Bird's defamatory reviews from Yelp.com. Yelp contends that Judge Sullivan did not have that authority because the removal order (1) violates due process; (2) constitutes a prior restraint of speech; and (3) is barred by the CDA. Before considering these claims of legal error, we briefly address two circumstances that are mentioned above in order to further clarify the scope of our review.
First, Yelp attempts to characterize the removal order as an injunction against Yelp. We do not accept that characterization. The judgment was entered solely against Bird, and the injunctive order was directed solely at Bird's defamatory speech.5 The removal order was limited to statements covered by that injunction, statements attributed to Bird which she had been ordered to remove. Thus, the removal order does not impose any independent restraint on Yelp's autonomy. Under these circumstances, charactering the removal order as an injunction creates unnecessary confusion about the clear distinction between the removal order and the underlying injunction against Bird. For reasons already discussed, Yelp cannot bootstrap its collateral attack of an allegedly void order into a substantive appeal of the default judgment itself. The question whether the trial court should have granted an injunction against Bird is outside the scope of this appeal.
Second, the September 2014 order denying Yelp's motion to vacate the judgment contains findings and a conclusion responsive to Hassell's contention that Yelp was aiding and abetting Bird's violation of the judgment. However, it appears that neither the trial court nor the parties ever considered whether that issue was cognizable in the context of a motion to vacate a judgment. As we have explained, the only issue properly raised by Yelp's nonstatutory motion to vacate was whether Judge Sullivan was without power to make the removal order that implemented the injunction against Bird. What Yelp did after the judgment was entered—whether it became an aider and abettor with respect to Bird's postjudgment violation of the injunction—is a separate issue which may be relevant in a future contempt action against Yelp for disobedience of the judgment. But Judge Goldsmith's adjudication of that issue was premature, and was also potentially improper to the extent proceedings were conducted without the procedural safeguards attendant to a contempt proceeding. In any event, findings of fact regarding Yelp's aiding and abetting are irrelevant to the issues properly raised in this appeal. Therefore, those findings will have no bearing on our disposition of this appeal.
Yelp contends that the removal order was barred by due process because the trial court did not afford Yelp notice or a hearing before the order was entered. There are two distinct prongs to Yelp's due process theory: first, that the trial court could not order Yelp to implement the injunction because it was not a party in the defamation action; and second, that prior notice and a hearing were mandatory because the removal order impinged on Yelp's First Amendment right to “host” Bird's reviews.
Yelp contends that the rule permitting a court to enforce an injunction against a nonparty is limited to situations in which “a group or organization has been enjoined, so as to prevent the group's individual members who are not named in the injunction from acting on behalf of that group.” As support for this claimed limitation, Yelp cites People ex rel. Gallo v. Acuna (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1090 (Acuna ). The issue in Acuna was whether designated members of a criminal street gang who were named defendants in a public nuisance action could be subject to an injunction because of the documented activities of the group to which they belonged. In approving such an injunction, the Acuna court did not impose any restriction on a court's authority to issue an injunction which runs also to a nonparty. Nor did it even consider that question.
Yelp cites two additional cases to support its contention that the trial court could not order a nonparty to effectuate the injunction against Bird: Fazzi v. Peters (1968) 68 Cal.2d 590 (Fazzi ) and Tokio Marine & Fire Ins. Corp. v. Western Pacific Roofing Corp. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 110, 120–121 (Tokio Marine ).
Fazzi and Tokio Marine are inapposite because both cases involved money judgments that were entered against nonparties to the litigation. Here, by contrast, the damages portion of the judgment was entered solely against Bird. Neither Fazzi nor Tokio Marine address whether an injunction imposed against a party can be enforced against a nonparty.
Yelp argues in the alternative that, even if the injunction against Bird could properly be enforced against a nonparty like Yelp, the evidence in this case does not “support the theory that Yelp was somehow ‘aiding and abetting’ Bird's violation of the injunction.” This issue was a major dispute below. But as we have already discussed, it has no bearing on the question whether the trial court was without power to issue the removal order in the first instance. The authority summarized above establishes that a trial court does have the power to fashion an injunctive decree so that the enjoined party may not nullify it by carrying out the prohibited acts with or through a nonparty to the original proceeding.
Yelp's second due process theory is that the First Amendment protects Yelp's right “to distribute the speech of others without an injunction,” and “Yelp simply cannot be denied those rights without notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard.” To support this argument, Yelp cites Marcus v. Search Warrants. (1961) 367 U.S. 717 (Marcus ).
We disagree that Marcus, supra, 367 U.S. 717 supports Yelp's due process claim for several reasons. First, Yelp's factual position in this case is unlike that of the Marcus appellants, who personally engaged in protected speech activities by selling books, magazines and newspapers. In order to claim a First Amendment stake in this case, Yelp characterizes itself as a publisher or distributor. But, at other times Yelp portrays itself as more akin to an Internet bulletin board—a host to speakers, but in no way a speaker itself. Of course, Yelp may play different roles depending on the context. However, in this context it appears to us that the removal order does not treat Yelp as a publisher of Bird's speech, but rather as the administrator of the forum that Bird utilized to publish her defamatory reviews.
Third, and crucially, the due process problems explored in Marcus, supra, 367 U.S. 717, and its progeny pertain to attempts to suppress speech that is only suspected of being unlawful. Here, we address the very different situation in which specific speech has already been found to be defamatory in a judicial proceeding. Yelp does not cite any authority which confers a constitutional right to a prior hearing before a distributor can be ordered to comply with an injunction that precludes re-publication of specific third party speech that has already been adjudged to be unprotected and tortious.
Yelp also contends the trial court was without authority to issue the removal order because it constitutes a prior restraint of speech.
Under the authority of Balboa Island, supra, 40 Cal.4th at pages 1155–1156, the trial court had the power to make the part of this order requiring Yelp to remove the three specific statements that were set forth in the exhibit A attachment to the Bird judgment because the injunction prohibiting Bird from repeating those statements was issued following a determination at trial that those statements are defamatory. However, to the extent the trial court additionally ordered Yelp to remove subsequent comments that Bird or anyone else might post, the removal order is an overbroad prior restraint on speech. (Ibid.; see also Evans, supra, 162 Cal.App.4th at p. 1169 [preliminary injunction prohibiting appellant from publishing any “false and defamatory” statements on the Internet constitutionally invalid because there had been no trial and determination on the merits that any statement by appellant was defamatory].) Therefore, we will remand this matter to the trial court with directions that it modify the removal order consistent with this limitation.
Yelp argues that even if Balboa Island applies in this context, the removal order is impermissibly overbroad because Hassell failed to actually prove that Bird wrote the February 2013 review posted under the name “J.D. Alameda, CA,” or the April 2013 review posted under the name “Birdseye B. Los Angeles, CA.” However, the trial court made a final judicial determination that Bird posted those reviews and, for reasons we have already discussed, Yelp does not have standing to challenge that aspect of the judgment.
Yelp argues the authority summarized above establishes that the removal order is void. We disagree. The removal order does not violate section 230 because it does not impose any liability on Yelp. In this defamation action, Hassell filed their complaint against Bird, not Yelp; obtained a default judgment against Bird, not Yelp; and was awarded damages and injunctive relief against Bird, not Yelp.
Neither party cites any authority that applies section 230 to restrict a court from directing an Internet service provider to comply with a judgment which enjoins the originator of defamatory statements posted on the service provider's Web site. We note, however, that section 230 explicitly provides that “[n]othing in this section shall be construed to prevent any State from enforcing any State law that is consistent with this section.” (§ 230(e)(3).) As discussed above, California law authorizes a trial court to issue an injunction preventing the repetition of statements that have been adjudged to be defamatory by the trier of fact. (Balboa Island, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 1160.) California law also empowers the court to enforce its judgment by ordering that an injunction run to a non-party through whom the enjoined party may act. (Planned Parenthood, supra, 107 Cal.App.4th at pp. 352–353.) It appears to us that these state law procedures are not inconsistent with section 230 because they do not impose any liability on Yelp, either as a speaker or a publisher of third party speech.
Yelp mistakenly contends that the “trial court” imposed liability on Yelp as an aider and abettor of Bird's defamatory postings. The “trial court” that conducted the default prove-up hearing and entered judgment against Bird alone (Judge Sullivan) did not find that Yelp was an aider and abettor or impose any liability on Yelp whatsoever. Furthermore, although the trial court that conducted the hearing on Yelp's motion to vacate (Judge Goldsmith) found that Yelp was an aider and abettor, we have already declared this finding not relevant to the issues before this court, and reiterate that it has no bearing on our analysis.
Yelp also argues that “enjoining a party from publishing content is a remedy that can only follow from a finding of liability, and thus the injunction entered against Yelp cannot survive the robust protection of the CDA.” Again though, the party that was enjoined from publishing content in this case was Bird, and that injunction did follow a finding of Bird's liability for publishing defamatory reviews about Hassell. Assuming, as Yelp has maintained, that Yelp played no role in the creation of that defamatory speech, an order directing Yelp to remove only those reviews that are covered by the injunction does not impose any liability on Yelp.
Yelp argues that cases extending CDA immunity to claims for injunctive relief that are alleged directly against a interactive service provider in a tort action must apply with equal force to an injunction that binds a non-party. Otherwise, Yelp argues, “a plaintiff who wants to enjoin an interactive computer service can nullify its immunity under the CDA by suing the creator of the third-party content and then obtaining an injunction binding the interactive computer service․” This argument ignores the fact that protection against third party liability is the foundation of CDA immunity. As we have pointed out, Hassell did not allege any cause of action seeking to hold Yelp liable for Bird's tort. The removal order simply sought to control the perpetuation of judicially declared defamatory statements. For this reason, Yelp seriously understates the significance of the fact that Hassell obtained a judgment which establishes that three reviews Bird posted on Yelp.com are defamatory as a matter of law, and which includes an injunction enjoining Bird from repeating those three reviews on Yelp.com. Indeed, that injunction is a key distinction between this case and the CDA cases that Yelp has cited, all of which involved allegations of defamatory conduct by a third party, and not a judicial determination that defamatory statements had, in fact, been made by such third party on the Internet service provider's Web site.
For all of these reasons, Yelp has failed to establish that section 230 or any other law barred the trial court from issuing the removal order under the circumstances of this case. Therefore, Yelp's nonstatutory motion to vacate the Bird judgment was properly denied.
The September 2014 order denying Yelp's motion to vacate the Bird judgment is affirmed, but this case is remanded to the trial court with the direction to narrow the terms of the removal order in the January 2014 judgment by limiting it to the specific defamatory statements that were listed on exhibit A of that judgment. The parties are to bear their own costs of appeal.
1. Generally, we will refer to respondents collectively, using the singular, gender neutral pronoun form where appropriate.
2. All further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure, unless otherwise indicated.
4. As noted, Bird elected not to appeal the judgment, but even if she had, Bird herself could not have challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support the liability findings in the default judgment. (Sporn v. Home Depot USA, Inc. (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 1294, 1303.) Clearly then, Yelp's claimed injury from the removal order did not authorize its attempted challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment against Bird.
We concur: RIVERA, J. STREETER, J.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.