Court Opinion

ID: 9724338
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 10:53:16.445492+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:59.443135
License: Public Domain

LILLIE, P. J.
I respectfully dissent. I would dismiss the purported appeal.
From a poorly drafted notice of appeal which recites that appeal is taken from the “the general demurrer . . . sustained without leave to amend,” it is apparent that at best, cross-complainant Equitable Life Assurance Society (Equitable) has “appealed” from a minute order sustaining demurrer without leave to amend which is a nonappealable order. An appeal lies only from a judgment of dismissal entered on an order sustaining demurrer. (Beazell v. Schrader (1963) 59 Cal.2d 577, 579 [30 Cal.Rptr. 534, 381 P.2d 390].) No such judgment was entered in the instant case. However, the majority has used an acceptable, although discretionary, method of “saving” the “appeal” by amending the nonappealable order to make it an appealable judgment of dismissal, and construing the noáce of appeal as applying to that judgment. (Taylor v. State Personnel Bd. (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d. 498, 501, fn. 1 [161 Cal.Rptr. 677].) I find nothing in the circumstances here justifying this procedure for resolution of an issue such as that raised in this purported appeal. Employing this kind of appellate challenge to the ruling sustaining demurrer absent special circumstances should be discouraged as countenancing appellate review of nonappealable orders carelessly brought up to this court with inattention to statutory provisions, and fostering shoddy appellate practice.
In any case, were I to reach the merits and review the issue raised by Equitable on this purported appeal, I would join with my colleagues in affirming the action of the trial court.