Baker v. Castaldi, 235 Cal. App. 4th 218

Plaintiff Ken R. Baker sued Theresa and Alfonse Castaldi for conversion of antiques and sought punitive damages; the trial was bifurcated into liability/compensatory/punitive-entitlement (first phase) and punitive-amount (second phase).
After the first phase, the trial court entered a document titled “judgment” on May 20, 2013, awarding $610,500 in compensatory damages and stating punitive damages would be assessed at a separate trial.
Appellants (Alfonse and related parties) filed notices of appeal that identified only the May 20, 2013 “judgment.”
The punitive-damages calculation trial occurred later (August 2013) and resulted in further orders, but the appeals litigated before the court concerned only the May 20 document.
The Court of Appeal sua sponte considered whether the May 20, 2013 “judgment” was a final, appealable judgment and ultimately concluded it was interlocutory because the amount of punitive damages remained to be decided.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the May 20, 2013 document was a final, appealable judgment	Baker: the document reflected final adjudication of compensatory damages and entitlement; appeal should proceed	Castaldi: the document was interlocutory because punitive amount remained to be tried; appeal improper	Held: Interlocutory — not appealable because punitive damages amount remained to be determined.
Whether appellate jurisdiction can be conferred by enforcement actions or merit	Baker: subsequent enforcement orders and proceedings support review	Castaldi: lack of finality is jurisdictional and cannot be cured by later actions	Held: Jurisdictional defect cannot be cured by merits or subsequent enforcement orders.
Whether liberal construction of notices of appeal saves the appeal	Baker: notices were at worst premature and should be construed liberally to include later final orders	Castaldi: notices clearly identified only the May 20 order and cannot be read as appeals from different later orders	Held: Liberal construction does not convert an appeal from one order into an appeal from a different later order.
Whether doctrines (death knell, waiver) or precedent compel appealability	Baker: invoked doctrines and argued waiver of objections	Castaldi: death-knell inapplicable; jurisdiction cannot be waived	Held: Death-knell inapplicable; jurisdiction cannot be waived — appeal dismissed.

Chapman v. Tarentola, 187 Cal.App.2d 22 (duty of appellate court to dismiss nonappealable appeals)
Marsh v. Mountain Zephyr, Inc., 43 Cal.App.4th 289 (appealability is jurisdictional)
Papadakis v. Zelis, 8 Cal.App.4th 1146 (appellate jurisdiction limited to judgments and orders in Code Civ. Proc. § 904.1)
Griset v. Fair Political Practices Comm., 25 Cal.4th 688 (final judgment leaves no issue for future consideration)
City of Shasta Lake v. County of Shasta, 75 Cal.App.4th 1 (a document titled "judgment" is a judgment only if it satisfies judgment criteria)
Kurwa v. Kislinger, 57 Cal.4th 1097 (one-final-judgment rule; parties cannot designate interlocutory order as final)
Plaza Tulare v. Tradewell Stores, Inc., 207 Cal.App.3d 522 (bifurcated trial adjudication is interlocutory and not immediately appealable)
Otay River Constructors v. San Diego Expressway, 158 Cal.App.4th 796 (appealability turns on substance and effect of adjudication)
In re Baycol Cases I & II, 51 Cal.4th 751 (limits on doctrines like "death knell" and principle that appellate jurisdiction is set by statute)

Disposition: Appeal dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction; parties to bear their own costs; sanctions denied.