Court Opinion

ID: 9408258
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-12 00:03:44.118812+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:42.971821
License: Public Domain

Filed 7/11/23 Romero v. Cherry Avenue Development CA4/2
                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 TWO

 ADRIANA VAS ROMERO,

          Cross-defendant and Respondent,                                E078921

 v.                                                                      (Super.Ct.No. CIVDS1935198)

 CHERRY AVENUE DEVELOPMENT,                                              OPINION
 INC.,

          Cross-complainant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Bryan F. Foster,

Judge. Appeal dismissed.

         Law Offices of Timothy P. Creyaufmiller and Timothy P. Creyaufmiller for

Cross-complainant and Appellant.

         Mansour Law Group, John F. Mansour and Steven G. Candelas for Cross-

defendant and Respondent.

                                                             1
       Adriana Vas Romero owned several parcels of land and hired Cherry Avenue

Development, Inc. (Cherry Avenue) to build single family homes on the parcels. A

dispute arose between the parties, and Cherry Avenue recorded a mechanic’s lien against

one of the properties, claiming that Vas Romero owed Cherry Avenue over $70,000.

       Vas Romero filed suit against Cherry Avenue, which filed a cross-complaint

against her and other parties. She moved for summary adjudication on one of the causes

of action in the first amended cross-complaint. The trial court granted that motion. The

order granting the motion also entered judgment in favor of Vas Romero on that single

cause of action. Cherry Avenue appeals from that judgment. We conclude that the

judgment is not appealable and dismiss the appeal.

                                    BACKGROUND

       The mechanic’s lien against Vas Romero’s property was recorded in

September 2019. In March 2020, Vas Romero obtained a bond to release the mechanic’s

lien. (See Civ. Code, § 8424, subds. (a), (c) [property owner disputing the correctness or

validity of a mechanic’s lien may release the property from the lien by recording a lien

release bond in the appropriate sum].) United States Fire Insurance Company is the

surety that issued the bond.

       Cherry Avenue’s first amended cross-complaint alleges a cause of action on the

lien release bond against Vas Romero and the surety. (See RGC Gaslamp, LLC v.

Ehmcke Sheet Metal Co., Inc. (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 413, 424 [recorded lien release

bond “becomes the lien claimant’s sole recourse for collecting sums due,” and “claimant

                                             2
must commence an action on the bond within six months of receiving notice of the

bond”].) That is the only cause of action against the surety. But the first amended cross-

complaint alleges several other causes of action against Vas Romero, including breach of

contract, assault, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

       Vas Romero moved for summary adjudication on the cause of action on the bond.

The surety was not a moving party. At the hearing on the summary adjudication motion,

the trial court granted it. Vas Romero submitted a proposed order granting the motion,

which the court adopted. The order also entered judgment in favor of Vas Romero on the

cause of action on the bond. Cherry Avenue filed a notice of appeal from that judgment.

       Cherry Avenue’s civil case information statement (Judicial Council form APP-

004) indicates that it is appealing from a “judgment after an order granting a summary

judgment motion.” The form also indicates that the judgment did not dispose of all

causes of action between the parties. In the section of the form asking Cherry Avenue to

explain why the judgment is appealable, Cherry Avenue states: “It is final as to one party

in the action.” The form identifies Vas Romero as the respondent and Cherry Avenue as

the appellant. The form does not identify the surety as a party to this appeal.

       We ordered Cherry Avenue to file a letter brief clarifying “whether there are still

causes of action remaining between appellant and respondent(s) on any cross-complaints

or the original complaint.” Our order noted that “[i]f any causes of action are still

pending between the parties to this appeal, the judgment is not ripe for appeal because of

the ‘one final judgment’ rule.”

                                               3
       In its letter brief, Cherry Avenue states there are several causes of action still

pending between it and Vas Romero. Cherry Avenue acknowledges that only Vas

Romero moved for summary adjudication, but it argues that the order granting the motion

entered judgment against Cherry Avenue and in favor of “all parties to” the relevant

cause of action, including the surety. Cherry Avenue asserts that there are no other

causes of action pending between it and the surety.

                                        DISCUSSION

       “Under the one final judgment rule, ‘“an appeal may be taken only from the final

judgment in an entire action.”’” (In re Baycol Cases I & II (2011) 51 Cal.4th 751, 756.)

The one final judgment rule “prohibits review of intermediate rulings by appeal until

final resolution of the case. ‘The theory is that piecemeal disposition and multiple

appeals in a single action would be oppressive and costly, and that a review of

intermediate rulings should await the final disposition of the case.’” (Griset v. Fair

Political Practices Com. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 688, 697.) Thus, with exceptions not relevant

here, appeals from interlocutory judgments are not permitted. (Code Civ. Proc., § 904.1,

subd. (a)(1).)

       A judgment is final and appealable “‘when it terminates the litigation between the

parties on the merits of the case and leaves nothing to be done but to enforce by

execution what has been determined.’” (Sullivan v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. (1997) 15

Cal.4th 288, 304.) But a “judgment that disposes of fewer than all of the causes of action

framed by the pleadings . . . is necessarily ‘interlocutory’ [citation], and not yet final, as

                                               4
to any parties between whom another cause of action remains pending.” (Morehart v.

County of Santa Barbara (1994) 7 Cal.4th 725, 741.) In a case involving multiple

parties, a judgment “determining all issues as to one or more parties may be treated as

final even though issues remain to be resolved between other parties.” (Id. at p. 740.)

       “The existence of an appealable judgment is a jurisdictional prerequisite to an

appeal.” (Jacobs-Zorne v. Superior Court (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1064, 1070 (Jacobs-

Zorne).) An appeal from a nonappealable order or judgment generally will be dismissed.

(Baker v. Castaldi (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 218, 222.)

       Cherry Avenue appeals from a nonappealable judgment in this case. The order

granting Vas Romero’s summary adjudication motion disposed of only one cause of

action between Cherry Avenue and Vas Romero, and several more causes of action

remained pending between those parties. That intermediate ruling is not appealable.

(Jacobs-Zorne, supra, 46 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1070-1071.) The fact that the order granting

the motion also entered judgment in favor of Vas Romero on the challenged cause of

action does not change the analysis. Any such judgment is interlocutory in effect. (See

Kurwa v. Kislinger (2013) 57 Cal.4th 1097, 1107 [“allowing the parties and trial court to

designate a substantively interlocutory judgment as final and appealable . . . would be

inconsistent with the one final judgment rule”].)

       Moreover, we are not persuaded by Cherry Avenue’s argument that the judgment

somehow disposed of the single cause of action between Cherry Avenue and the surety.

The surety did not move for summary adjudication on the cause of action on the bond.

                                             5
The surety did not appear at the hearing on the motion. The court’s oral ruling granting

Vas Romero’s motion did not mention the surety. And the written order unambiguously

states that the court entered judgment for Vas Romero on the relevant cause of action.

The order and judgment do not mention the surety at all. The record therefore does not

support Cherry Avenue’s argument that the judgment disposed of the cause of action

against the surety. There was no judgment in favor of the surety, final or not.

       Although we have discretion to treat an appeal as a petition for writ of mandate,

we see no reason to do so in this case. (Jackson v. Wells Fargo Bank (1997) 54

Cal.App.4th 240, 245.) We reserve that procedure for unusual circumstances not present

here. (Ibid.) Most importantly, Cherry Avenue has an adequate remedy at law. (In re

Marriage of Lafkas (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1429, 1435.) The order granting Vas

Romero’s summary adjudication motion is reviewable on appeal from the final judgment

between Vas Romero and Cherry Avenue. (Jacobs-Zorne, supra, 46 Cal.App.4th at

p. 1070.) If the surety moves for summary judgment on the cause of action against it,

then any order granting that motion will be reviewable on appeal from the judgment in

favor of the surety. We thus decline to treat the appeal as a writ petition.

       In sum, Cherry Avenue appeals from a nonappealable judgment. Accordingly, we

dismiss the appeal.

                                              6
                                     DISPOSITION

       The appeal is dismissed. Vas Romero shall recover her costs of appeal. (Cal.

Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(2).)

       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                                             MENETREZ
                                                                                      J.

We concur:

RAMIREZ
                       P. J.
CODRINGTON
                          J.

                                           7