2/7 DCA Implicitly Suggests Disagreement With Other Decisions, But Finds Two Sanctions Orders Were Not Intertwined.
OK, for you folks who love technical appealability issues, Taylor v. Forde, Case No. B298957 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Jan. 20, 2021) (unpublished), may be your forte, especially when it comes to appealability of discovery terminating sanctions orders and discovery monetary sanctions. Be careful when you appeal a terminating sanctions order.
What happened here is that both discovery terminating sanctions and monetary sanctions orders were entered, but no judgment was ever entered on the complaint or stricken cross-complaint—no default prove-up proceedings resulted in a final judgment. Appellants appealed the terminating sanctions order, but they did not contest the monetary sanctions order. The lack of a final judgment on the merits sealed the deal with respect to appealing the terminating sanctions order, except for appellant’s argument that the appeal of the monetary sanctions preserved the appeal of the terminating sanctions. Appellant argued that the terminating sanctions order was “inextricably intertwined” with the monetary sanctions order over the $5,000 limit such that everything was good.
The 2/7 DCA disagreed, dismissing the appeal. It questioned whether the “inextricably intertwined” exception in Nickell v. Matlock, 206 Cal.App.4th 934 (2012) and Mileikowsky v. Tenet Healthsystem, 128 Cal.App.4th 262 (2005) was valid. However, the terminating sanctions and monetary sanctions orders were not intertwined given no suggestion the sanctions order was erroneous, all the more so because they serve different purposes. Because the terminating sanctions order was nonappealable and not intertwined, the appeal was dismissed.
Comments