Appealability: Appellant’s Failure To Specify Appeal From Postjudgment Order Denying Motion To Tax Costs Did Not Encompass Award Of CCP § 998 Expert Fees To Defendants, Requiring Dismissal Of The Appeal

Appellant Sealed His Fate Based On Oral Argument Concessions.

            Gallegos v. Tesoro Sierra Properties, LLC, Case No. B282757 (2d Dist., Div. 3 June 19, 2019) (unpublished) is a case where an appeal was dismissed for lack of clarity in what was included in the notice of appeal.  Appellant only appealed a judgment and then postjudgment motion denying a motion for new trial, never mentioning an appeal of a post-trial motion denying a motion to tax expert witness costs awarded to the defense based on a CCP § 998 offer.  Where there are several “judgments” at issue, this case reinforces that an appellant needs to be clear in the notice of appeal, because generally postjudgment motions involving fees and costs awards are appealed separately.  (Filbin v. Fitzgerald, 211 Cal.App.4^th 154, 173 (2012); Norman I. Krug Real Estate Investments, Inc. v. Praszker, 220 Cal.App.3d 35, 45-47 (1990).)  Although appellant argued there was ambiguity when he just checked the Judicial Council form box indicating an appeal from a postjudgment order, he sealed his fate by conceding at oral argument that the appeal was only from the judgment and order denying his motion for new trial.  LESSON FROM THIS ONE:  Specify the postjudgment order from which you are appealing, especially if it involves adverse attorney’s fees or costs rulings if you want to be safely within the appellate court’s jurisdiction to have review on the merits.