Plaintiff’s Challenge To The Costs Order Was Precluded As It Ultimately Attacked A Prejudgment Order That Plaintiff Did Not Appeal And Did Not Challenge In Appeal Of The Judgment And Underlying Summary Judgment Ruling.
In Lopez v. Irvine Company LLC, Case No. G059354 (4th Dist., Div. 3 July 1, 2022) (unpublished), defendants defeated plaintiff’s housing discrimination claims through a summary judgment motion. Afterward, the trial court awarded defendants $3,451.11 out of the requested $4,463.01 in costs, which included $1,956.95 in costs associated with plaintiff’s deposition. Plaintiff argued on appeal that his deposition testimony should have been precluded due to defendants’ failure to disclose that the company providing the deposition services was a tenant in a building owned by one of the defendants, and that this affiliation created a “hostile environment” for his deposition. Because his deposition testimony should have been precluded, plaintiff contended, the trial court erred in awarding defendant costs related to his deposition.
In a 3-0 opinion authored by Acting Presiding Justice Goethals, the 4/3 DCA affirmed. Prior to judgment, the trial court denied plaintiff’s motion to have his deposition testimony suppressed and for $10,000 in sanctions to be imposed based on the same failure to disclose the affiliation argument. Because plaintiff did not appeal that prejudgment order, nor did he claim that the trial court erred with regard to that order when he appealed the judgment and underlying summary judgment ruling, he was precluded from making that argument with regard to the costs award. To allow plaintiff to re-raise the same argument in challenging the costs award “‘“would have the effect of allowing two appeals from the same ruling.”’” (Hersey v. Vopava, 38 Cal.App.5th 792, 797-798 (2019).)
Comments