Alaoui v. Vaynerman CA2/5
B308421
| Cal. Ct. App. | Nov 8, 2021Background:
- Alaoui sued Vaynerman for negligence after a 2016 automobile collision; the complaint was filed about two years later.
- The case proceeded to discovery; a final status conference in Feb 2020 was not attended by either party.
- At trial call in early March 2020 Vaynerman appeared but Alaoui did not; the trial court issued a minute order dismissing the complaint without prejudice under Code Civ. Proc. § 581(b)(5).
- The dismissal order in the record is an unsigned minute order and no signed order of dismissal or judgment appears in the appellate record.
- Alaoui moved under Code Civ. Proc. § 473(b) to set aside the dismissal, claiming his counsel’s excusable neglect; the trial court denied the motion finding false statements, lack of diligence, prejudice to Vaynerman, and counsel’s pattern of similar failures.
- Alaoui appealed the denial; the Court of Appeal concluded it lacked jurisdiction because there was no signed dismissal order or judgment and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs to Vaynerman.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an appeal from denial of a § 473(b) motion is proper without a final judgment/signed dismissal | Alaoui: the minute dismissal functions as a final judgment and authorizes appeal from a post-judgment order | Vaynerman: no signed order or judgment exists, so no final judgment to support an appeal | Court: No jurisdiction without a signed order of dismissal or judgment; appeal dismissed |
| Whether the § 473(b) motion should have been granted (excusable neglect) | Alaoui: counsel’s calendaring error and excusable neglect justify relief | Vaynerman: motion contained inconsistencies; pattern of identical motions; prejudice from preparing/appearing at trial | Trial court denied relief on the merits, but appellate court did not reach or disturb that ruling due to lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Generale Bank Nederland v. Eyes of the Beholder Ltd., 61 Cal.App.4th 1384 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) (requires a valid final judgment to support appeal from post-judgment order)
- Powell v. County of Orange, 197 Cal.App.4th 1573 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (same principle on appealability of post-judgment orders)
- City of Los Angeles v. City of Los Angeles Employee Relations Bd., 7 Cal.App.5th 150 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (dismissal order is appealable as final judgment only if signed per § 581d)
- Katzenstein v. Chabad of Poway, 237 Cal.App.4th 759 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (signed dismissal requirement for finality)
- Munoz v. Florentine Gardens, 235 Cal.App.3d 1730 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991) (absence of signed order/judgment deprives appellate court of jurisdiction)