AMC Investment, Inc v. Ying

DocketDescription: Record shipped to records center; Notes: E-filed

DocketDescription: Case complete.

DocketDescription: Remittitur issued.

DispositionDescription: Other involuntary dismissal; Disposition Type: Final

DocketDescription: Dismissal order filed.; Notes: Order continued: AMC (one of the cross-defendants and respondents) continues to litigate this case in the trial court as a plaintiff. An appealable judgment cannot yet be entered with regard to AMC. (Westamerica Bank v. MBG Industries, Inc. (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 109, 132 [a judgment resolving one pleading between the "same parties" is not yet final if another pleading is still pending between the same parties in the same action].) It would be inefficient to allow this appeal to proceed as to three of the four respondents only, rather than waiting for a final judgment. By waiting to enter judgment in favor of respondents on the cross-complaint, the trial court has sensibly prevented the action from being unnecessarily divided. Appellant simply needs to wait until a final judgment is entered in the action and to file an appeal at that time from all cognizable issues he wishes to challenge. None of the cases cited by appellant feature a comparable procedural posture. Thus, on the court's own motion, this appeal is DISMISSED. Respondents shall recover costs incurred on appeal. O'LEARY, P. J. * Before O'Leary, P. J., Sanchez, J., and Motoike, J.

DocketDescription: Dismissal order filed.; Notes: Appellant Roy Ying appeals an unsigned minute order sustaining a demurrer to his cross-complaint. No judgment has been entered following this order and proceedings continue in the trial court on the complaint filed by plaintiff and cross-defendant AMC Investment, Inc. (AMC). We dismiss the appeal on our own motion. On January 31, 2022, the court sustained without leave to amend cross-defendants' demurrer as to each cause of action alleged in appellant's second amended cross-complaint. The court ruled that the first through ninth causes of action were time-barred, and the tenth cause of action failed to set forth all the elements of the claim. This ruling was made by way of an unsigned minute order. On April 1, 2022, appellant filed a notice of appeal purporting to challenge a "judgment of dismissal after an order sustaining a demurrer." Attached to the notice of appeal was a copy of the cross-defendants' notice of ruling, which in turn attached a copy of the minute order sustaining the demurrer. Appellant's civil case information statement likewise represented that the appeal was taken from a "judgment of dismissal after an order sustaining a demurrer," but no judgment was provided with the civil case information statement. On June 2, 2022, we issued an order staying preparation of the record and advising the parties we were considering dismissal of the appeal. We invited the parties to respond within 30 days, either by filing a copy of a judgment of dismissal of the cross-complaint and/or by filing a letter brief addressing appealability. Under the one final judgment rule, "an appeal cannot be taken from a judgment that fails to complete the disposition of all the causes of action between the parties." (Morehart v. County of Santa Barbara (1994) 7 Cal.4th 725, 743.) Whether it is denominated as a judgment or an order, a ruling dismissing an action must be written and signed by the court to serve as a final appealable judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., 581d, 904.1, subd. (a).) An unsigned minute order sustaining a demurrer is not a final judgment and is not appealable. (Flores v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 199, 203-204.) If a judgment is entered after the notice of appeal is filed, this court has discretion to treat a premature notice of appeal as validly taken from the judgment. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.104(d).) In his letter brief, appellant acknowledges no judgment has been entered, either before the notice of appeal was filed or afterward. Nonetheless, appellant asks this court to deem the minute order to be an appealable final judgment as a means of promoting judicial efficiency and avoiding unnecessary delay and costs. Appellant cites several cases in which, for the sake of efficiency and convenience, courts have opted to treat orders sustaining demurrers as final judgments. (See Villery v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation (2016) 246 Cal. App.4th 407, 412; Nowlon v. Koram Ins. Center, Inc. (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 1437, 1440, 1441; Munoz v. Davis (1983) 141 Cal.App.3d 420, 431.)

DocketDescription: Order filed.; Notes: Respondents' application for permission to file a letter brief regarding appealability is DENIED.

DocketDescription: Application filed to:; Notes: Respondents' application for permission to file late letter brief regarding appealability.

DocketDescription: Note:; Notes: No letter brief filed by respondent.

DocketDescription: Letter brief filed.; Notes: Defendant, Cross-complainant and Appellant: Roy Ying Attorney: Long Z. Liu Incorrect pagination (attached documents are not paginated).

DocketDescription: Returned document for non-conformance.; Notes: Opposition to motion to vacate dismissal; There is no motion to vacate dismissal pending.

DispositionDescription: Appeal dismissed - case information statement not filed; Disposition Type: Vacated

DocketDescription: Appeal dismissed - case information statement not filed.; Notes: Appellant failed to file a Civil Case Information Statement pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.100(g), after notice that appellant was in default. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED. Appellant is advised that this dismissal will become final as to this court 30 days after the date of this order, at which time this court will lose the power to vacate, reconsider or modify it. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.264(b)(1).) A motion to vacate dismissal requires a showing of good cause. To allow the court sufficient time to review and evaluate the showing of good cause, a motion to vacate dismissal should be filed well before the 30-day jurisdictional deadline.

DocketDescription: To presiding justice for signature.; Notes: Dismissal order

DocketDescription: Notice to reporter to prepare transcript.; Notes: CSR Shawnda R. Dorn

DocketDescription: Appellant 's notice designating record on appeal filed in trial court on:; Notes: 04/08/22 (8.122 CT & RT)

DocketDescription: Filing fee.; Notes: Paid

DocketDescription: Default notice sent; no case information statement filed, or statement incomplete.

DocketDescription: Notice of appeal lodged/received.; Notes: APLT: Roy Ying

DocketTrial Court Name: Orange County Superior Court - Main; County: Orange; Trial Court Case Number: 30-2020-01159912; Trial Court Judge: Griffin, Craig