Court Opinion

ID: 9939384
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 21:03:05.601106+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:41:08.511525
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/9/24 Hart v. Alta Vista Gardens 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     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

 DOUGLAS HART,                                                          B328231

           Plaintiff and Respondent,                                    (Los Angeles County
                                                                        Super. Ct. No.
           v.                                                           19STCV20149)

 ALTA VISTA GARDENS, INC.,

           Defendant and Appellant.

     APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Ernest M. Hiroshige, Daniel M. Crowley,
Judges. Dismissed.

         John J. O’Kane III, for Defendant and Appellant.

     Soofer Law Group and Ramin Soofer for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
                       ______________
      Plaintiff and respondent Douglas Hart (Hart) filed a slip-
and-fall action against defendant and appellant Alta Vista
Gardens, Inc. (Alta Vista), the City of Los Angeles, and
Konstantin Goldenberg and Faina Goldenberg (collectively the
Goldenbergs), after Hart tripped on the sidewalk in front of Alta
Vista’s premises and suffered a shoulder injury. Hart obtained a
verdict awarding him $1,608,000 against Alta Vista following a
bench trial. Judgment against Alta Vista was entered on
February 22, 2022. On February 15, 2023,1 a year after the
judgment was entered against Alta Vista, Hart dismissed with
prejudice his claims against the Goldenbergs. Alta Vista then
appealed, identifying the 2023 order dismissing the Goldenbergs
as the order being appealed. Alta Vista seeks a ruling that entry
of the order dismissing the Goldenbergs made the 2022 judgment
against it appealable, and requests a remand of the case to the
trial court to permit Alta Vista an opportunity to file post-
judgment motions regarding the 2022 judgment.
      The appeal is dismissed.2 As we explain below, Alta Vista’s
opening brief (the sole pleading it has filed with this court) lacks
a coherent factual statement, contains not a single citation to the
record, and discusses numerous matters about which the record
contains no materials. Further, the brief fails to articulate and
develop legal arguments with pertinent legal authority. To the
extent we are able to glean the contentions of purported error,

      1 Alta Vista’s brief and the notice of appeal inaccurately
state that the Goldenbergs’ dismissal with prejudice was entered
on February 14, 2023. The dismissal was requested on
February 14, 2023, but entered on February 15, 2023.
      2 In light of our disposition, we need not rule on Hart’s
motion to dismiss filed with this court on October 16, 2023.

                                    2
the issues presented are not properly raised. Alta Vista lacks
standing to appeal the 2023 dismissal with prejudice of the
Goldenbergs because Alta Vista is not an aggrieved party. (Code
Civ. Proc., § 902.) The dismissal has no impact on Alta Vista’s
rights or interests, as the separate 2022 judgment resolved all
issues between Hart and Alta Vista. To the extent Alta Vista
purports to appeal the 2022 judgment, the appeal is dismissed as
untimely.

                  PROCEDURAL HISTORY

       On June 10, 2019, Hart filed the underlying complaint.
The Goldenbergs failed to appear and defaults were entered
against them on August 13, 2019. Alta Vista and the City of Los
Angeles answered the complaint. The City of Los Angeles was
dismissed from the action on October 15, 2020.
       Judge Ernest Hiroshige conducted a bench trial as to Alta
Vista and a default prove-up as to the Goldenbergs.
       On November 15, 2021, Judge Hiroshige issued a tentative
decision as to Alta Vista that awarded damages to Hart in the
amount of $1,608,000. The tentative decision became the final
decision 10 days later.
       On December 13, 2021, Judge Hiroshige issued a tentative
decision on the default prove-up, denying Hart’s request for a
default judgment against the Goldenbergs because the complaint
failed to allege the Goldenbergs were being sued as individuals,
rather than entities. Judge Hiroshige ordered Hart to file an
amended complaint addressing the deficiency.
       On February 22, 2022, judgment was entered against Alta
Vista in the amount of $1,608,000. The next day, the clerk of the

                                   3
court filed and served on the parties a Notice of Entry of
Judgment.
       Subsequently, Hart caused a writ of execution to be issued
and levied on Alta Vista’s bank account. Alta Vista obtained a
temporary restraining order and applied for an injunction. On
June 29, 2022, Judge Mark A. Borenstein, who was assigned to
hear the restraining order proceedings, vacated the temporary
restraining order and ordered that no injunction would issue.
Judge Borenstein found, for the purposes of the injunction
proceedings, that the February 22, 2022 judgment was “an
interlocutory [judgment] not subject to appeal [or] enforcement
under the Enforcement of Judgments Act.” Judge Borenstein
ordered that the monies seized by the Sheriff in June 2022 be
returned to Alta Vista, but the order was without prejudice to
further proceedings concerning the nature of the “February 22,
2022 ‘judgment’ ” or any amended judgment. With respect to the
February 22, 2022 judgment, Judge Borenstein stated, “This
Court is unsure whether it would have characterized this
‘judgment’ as an interlocutory order not subject to appeal and
enforcement. In fact, the Court of Appeal might well find the
February 22, 2022 ‘judgment’ is final under Civil Procedure Code
[section] 578 and [section] 579. The ‘judgment’ resolved all of the
issues between Plaintiff and one defendant, Alta Vista Gardens,
in an action that sought several liability. [¶] But here, the
Plaintiff admitted in writing in a document presented to Judge
Hiroshige before signing the ‘judgment,’ that it was not a final
judgment. Defendant agreed. If Plaintiff intended to seek
enforcement of the judgment he proposed to the Judge, Plaintiff
should have asked the court to enter a separate, final judgment
under either section 578 or section 579. Plaintiff’s admission

                                    4
otherwise, precludes Plaintiff from arguing now the ‘judgment’
was final and enforceable. At least as between the parties, the
‘judgment’ is a non final interlocutory judgment, that cannot be
enforced until it is final and appealable.” Judge Borenstein
concluded with the statement that, “This order is without
prejudice to further proceedings concerning the nature of the
February 22, 2022 ‘judgment’ or any amended judgment.”
      On February 15, 2023, at Hart’s request, the Goldenbergs
were dismissed from the action with prejudice.3 Shortly
thereafter, Hart sought to have a writ of execution issue. The
court rejected Hart’s writ of execution on February 27, 2023,
stating that further information was required.
      Alta Vista filed two substantively identical notices of
appeal in the trial court, on April 13 and 17, 2023. The notices of
appeal indicate that Alta Vista appealed “[f]rom dismissal with
prejudice (dated 2/14/2023) of individual defendants, rendering
judgment against entity Defendant (dated 2/22/2022) final and
appeal-able under [Code Civ. Proc., §] 904.1(a)(1).” The Civil
Case Information Statement that Alta Vista then filed with this
court attaches the February 15, 2023 order dismissing the
Goldenbergs as the order appealed from.

                          DISCUSSION

      Alta Vista wholly fails to meet the requirement of
California Rules of Court, rule 8.204, subdivision (a)(1)(C), that a

      3 The record on appeal contains no information regarding
what occurred between the tentative decision denying default
judgments against the Goldenbergs and their dismissal from the
action with prejudice.

                                    5
brief must “[s]upport any reference to a matter in the record by a
citation to the volume and page number of the record where the
matter appears.” Indeed, although Alta Vista’s brief purports to
present “a complete history of the case,” it contains not a single
citation to the record. Worse still, we are unable to find in our
review of Alta Vista’s appendix (or Hart’s appendix) the existence
of materials that even relate to most of the statements Alta Vista
makes. Alta Vista’s brief makes representations about the
procedural history, the content of filings across various
departments of the Superior Court, the testimony of witnesses,
expert testimony, evidentiary rulings, a terminating sanctions
order, written closing arguments, objections to the judgment, an
amended complaint, failures of service, a writ of execution, ex
parte filings, conversations with the court clerk, Alta Vista’s need
to borrow funds to cover monies taken from its bank account, and
court orders relating to potential future writs of execution. No
record materials are cited, much less provided to support these
representations. Accordingly, we disregard Alta Vista’s
unsupported statements. (See Gottschall v. Daley (2002) 96
Cal.App.4th 479, 481, fn. 1; Kendall v. Barker (1988) 197
Cal.App.3d 619, 625, superseded on other grounds by Code Civ.
Proc., §472, subd. (b).)
       Alta Vista’s purported legal arguments also fail to meet the
requirements of California Rules of Court, Rule 8.204,
subdivisions (2)(A-B), in that they muddle whether Alta Vista is
appealing from the February 14, 2023 dismissal of the
Goldenbergs, or the February 22, 2022 judgment, or some other
order.4 On one hand, it appears that the appeal is directed at the

      4 The opening brief states that Alta Vista appeals from an
order dated June 21, 2023, and does not identify the order or its

                                    6
February 14, 2023 dismissal order: that is the order identified in
the notice of appeal, the Case Information Statement, and is the
only order fitting the statement in Alta Vista’s opening brief that
it is appealing under “Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1,
subdivision (a)(2).”5 To the extent this is Alta Vista’s position,
the appeal fails.
       Alta Vista lacks standing to challenge the dismissal. “Code
of Civil Procedure section 902 sets forth the statutory basis for
standing to appeal, ‘Any party aggrieved may appeal in the cases
prescribed in this title.’ The Supreme Court has explained the
test of whether a party is aggrieved: ‘One is considered
“aggrieved” whose rights or interests are injuriously affected by
the judgment. [Citations.] Appellants interest “must be
immediate, pecuniary, and substantial and not nominal or a
remote consequence of the judgment.” [Citation.]’ [Citations.]
The controlling Supreme Court analysis was explained by the
Court of Appeal thusly: ‘ “[A]s to the question who is the party
aggrieved, the test . . . seems to be the most clear and simple that
could be conceived. Would the party have had the thing, if the

substance in the record. It may be that the inclusion of this date
is a mistake, but it is far from apparent, given the numerous
citations to dates and events for which no record evidence is cited
or provided. Nevertheless, it seems likely that Alta Vista is not
appealing from an order entered over two months after the notice
of appeal was filed.
      5 Code of Civil Procedure, section 904.1, subdivision (a)(2)
permits an appeal from an order made after a judgment made
appealable by paragraph (1), which in turn exempts most
interlocutory judgments. The February 14, 2023 dismissal order
is the only order arguably fitting that description.

                                    7
erroneous judgment had not been given? If the answer be yea,
then the person is the ‘party aggrieved.’ But his right to the
thing must be immediate, and not the remote consequence of the
judgment, had it been differently given.” [Citation.]’ [Citation.]
The Courts of Appeal have characterized standing to appeal as a
jurisdictional matter.” (United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell
& Reed, Inc. (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 1300, 1304.)
       Alta Vista has failed to show that it has any right or
interest that was affected by the Goldenbergs’ dismissal. The
controversy between Alta Vista and Hart was resolved in its
entirety by the judgment entered against Alta Vista on
February 22, 2022. Alta Vista therefore has no standing to
appeal the Goldenbergs’ dismissal.
       Alternatively, Alta Vista’s brief might be understood to
appeal the February 22, 2022 judgment, as the notice of appeal
suggests that the dismissal with prejudice of the Goldenbergs
operated to make the February 22, 2022 judgment against Alta
Vista—which it characterizes as “interlocutory”—a final and
appealable judgment. The import of this assertion would appear
to be that Alta Vista’s April 13, 2023 appeal, filed within 60 days
of the February 15, 2023 dismissal of the Goldenbergs, should be
considered a timely appeal of the February 22, 2022 judgment
Hart obtained against Alta Vista. This convoluted argument also
fails.
       “Section 904.1, subdivision (a) allows appeal ‘[f]rom a
judgment, except . . . an interlocutory judgment. . . .’ In Morehart
[v. County of Santa Barbara (1994) 7 Cal.4th 725 (Morehart)],
[the Supreme Court] we explained that the rule codified in this
provision, known as the one final judgment rule, precludes an
appeal from a judgment disposing of fewer than all the causes of

                                    8
action extant between the parties . . . . ‘A judgment that disposes
of fewer than all of the causes of action framed by the pleadings,
however, is necessarily “interlocutory” (Code Civ. Proc., § 904.1,
subd. (a)), and not yet final, as to any parties between whom
another cause of action remains pending.’ (Morehart, supra, 7
Cal.4th at p. 741.) The theory of the rule 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.” ’ ” (Kurwa v.
Kislinger (2013) 57 Cal.4th 1097, 1101.) “Judgments that leave
nothing to be decided between one or more parties and their
adversaries, [however,] . . . have the finality required by section
904.1, subdivision (a).” (Morehart, supra, at p. 741.)
       Alta Vista’s position that the February 22, 2022 judgment
was interlocutory has no legal support. The judgment resolved
all issues between Hart and Alta Vista and imposed several
liability on Alta Vista in the amount of $1,608,000. Alta Vista
does not argue otherwise. Rather, Alta Vista suggests that the
order of Judge Borenstein denying its application for injunction—
which was entered over four months after the judgment itself—
rendered the judgment “interlocutory.” Alta Vista cites to no
authority that supports its position that a post-judgment order on
a collateral matter (and entered by a different judge) can alter
the nature of a final judgment, and we know of none. Moreover,
we do not read Judge Borenstein’s order as definitively resolving
that the prior judgment was interlocutory. It appears that Judge
Borenstein, though dubious of the correctness of the parties’
characterization of the judgment as interlocutory, intended to
hold the parties to their position for purposes of deciding whether
to grant the injunction, rather than permitting them to shift

                                    9
position when it suited their purposes to do so. Regardless,
Judge Borenstein’s order in collateral proceedings involving an
injunction had no effect on the finality of the February 22, 2022
judgment. To the extent that Alta Vista attempts to appeal that
judgment, it failed to do so within the 60-day statutory period.
      Because we conclude that the appeal is untimely as to the
February 22, 2022 final judgment and Alta Vista has no standing
to appeal the February 15, 2023 dismissal of the Goldenbergs, we
dismiss the appeal.

                         DISPOSITION

      The appeal is dismissed. Plaintiff and Respondent Douglas
Hart is awarded costs on appeal.
      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

                                           MOOR, J.

We concur:

                  BAKER, Acting, P. J.

                  LEE, J.*

      * Judge of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County,
assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of
the California Constitution.

                                   10