Court Opinion

ID: 9904755
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-27 19:03:34.266991+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:19.089552
License: Public Domain

Filed 11/27/23 Baul v. Alvarez 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   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

 AUSTIN BAUL,                                                        B317760

           Plaintiff and Appellant,                                  (Los Angeles County Super.
                                                                     Ct. No. 20STCV45635)
           v.

 MARIANO A. ALVAREZ, et al.,

           Defendants and Respondents.

      APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Michelle Williams Court, Judge. Affirmed.
      Austin Baul in pro. per. for Plaintiff and Appellant.
      Law Offices of Mariano A. Alvarez and Mariano A. Alvarez,
for Defendants and Respondents.

                              ___________________________
      We dismiss this appeal because it is from a nonappealable,
unsigned minute order.
                    PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
      This matter involves a long-standing dispute over control of
a nonprofit corporation, the Filipino American Community of Los
Angeles, Inc. (FACLA), and its real property located in Los
Angeles. In 2020, after several other lawsuits between the
parties, Austin Baul filed a derivative action on behalf of FACLA
in case no. 20STCV24533 (24533 matter). The trial court, on its
own motion, struck his complaint because it failed to comply with
the pleading requirements for a derivative action under
Corporations Code section 5710. The court dismissed the 24533
matter without prejudice.
      Rather than seeking appellate review of the dismissal or
commencing a new action with a complaint that did not contain
the defects of the complaint in the 24533 matter, Baul filed the
same complaint against the same defendants in new case no.
20STCV45635 (45635 matter) with a new judge. Defendants
moved to strike the complaint and requested monetary sanctions
under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7. The court in the
45635 matter granted the motion, struck the complaint, and
dismissed the matter without prejudice. Baul appealed from the
December 13, 2021 minute order. This is the ruling that is the
subject of this appeal.
      On November 8, 2023, we invited the parties to submit
supplemental briefs addressing whether Baul has appealed from
an appealable order pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section
581d. On November 16, 2023, Baul filed a letter brief arguing
that the court’s December 13, 2021 order was final because it
resolved all issues in the case. Baul acknowledged that if we find

                                2
the order does not fulfill the requirements of Code of Civil
Procedure section 581d, his appeal may be subject to dismissal.
Respondents did not file a supplemental brief.
                            DISCUSSION
       “In general, the right to an appeal is entirely statutory;
unless specified by statute no judgment or order is appealable.”
(Garau v. Torrance Unified School Dist. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th
192.) Appellate courts cannot consider an appeal taken from a
nonappealable judgment or order. This is a jurisdictional
principle. (Griset v. Fair Political Practices Com. (2001)
25 Cal.4th 688, 696.) A dismissal order is appealable as a final
judgment when the order complies with Code of Civil Procedure
section 581d. (City of Los Angeles v. City of Los Angeles Employee
Relations Bd. (2016) 7 Cal.App.5th 150, 157.) Section 581d
provides: “A written dismissal of an action shall be entered in
the clerk’s register and is effective for all purposes when so
entered. [¶] 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 those orders when so filed shall constitute judgments and be
effective for all purposes, and the clerk shall note those
judgments in the register of actions in the case.” (Code Civ.
Proc., § 581d [italics added].)
       Here, Baul appeals from an order that is not signed by the
court. Without a signed order of dismissal (or a judgment), we
lack jurisdiction to hear this appeal and must dismiss it. (Munoz
v. Florentine Gardens (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1730, 1732.)

                                 3
                       DISPOSITION
      The appeal is dismissed. Respondents are awarded their
costs on appeal.

                                        RUBIN, P. J.
WE CONCUR:

                       MOOR, J.

                       KIM, J.

                                 4