City of Gardena v. Rikuo Corp.
192 Cal. App. 4th 595
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- City of Gardena filed eminent domain action against Rikuo Corporation; later settled by mediation in 2004 via written settlement agreement.
- In 2006, pursuant to a stipulation, the trial court entered a Judgment and Final Order of Condemnation for both actions, retaining jurisdiction to determine remediation costs.
- Post-judgment, two court orders released funds from a court-controlled deposit intended to cover remediation costs.
- Defendant appealed claiming the two post-judgment orders were appealable under CCP § 904.1(a)(2); City argued they were not appealable.
- Court analyzed whether consent judgment was final and appealable, and whether waiver provisions foreclosed appellate review of remediation-cost determinations.
- Court dismissed the appeal, holding the post-judgment orders were not appealable and that agreements attempting to render them appealable could not create appellate jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the post-judgment orders appealable after a nonappealable consent judgment? | Rikuo argues orders are appealable under § 904.1(a)(2). | City contends orders are not appealable. | No; orders are not appealable. |
| Does a consent judgment bar appeals from post-judgment remediation-cost determinations? | Consent intended to settle all claims including remediation costs, but may still permit appeals on remanded issues. | Consent judgment is nonappealable and forecloses appeals on remediation costs. | Consent judgment is nonappealable; § 904.1(a)(2) does not apply. |
| Does waiver of appeal rights in the consent judgment foreclose appellate review of remediation-cost issues? | Paragraph 22 reserves remediation-cost defenses; Paragraph 20 waives appeal rights except as to Paragraph 22. | Waiver does not expressly preserve right to appeal trial court remediation determinations. | Waiver of appeal rights in Paragraph 20 is broad and effectively bars appeal; no preserved right to appeal remediation determinations. |
| Can section 664.6 retention of jurisdiction or Wackeen v. Malis authorize appellate review here? | Retention of jurisdiction under 664.6 could allow summary enforcement of settlement terms. | Settlement retention here was not properly invoked under §664.6; thus not applicable. | Not applicable; jurisdiction not conferred to review remediation-cost orders. |
| Should the appeal be treated as a petition for extraordinary relief due to nonappealability? | Not pursued as extraordinary relief; rejected as not warranted. | N/A | Not treated as extraordinary relief; appeal dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Griset v. Fair Political Practices Com., 25 Cal.4th 688 (Cal. 2001) (appealability requires an appealable order or judgment; one-final-judgment rule)
- Pazderka v. Caballeros Dimas Alang, Inc., 62 Cal.App.4th 658 (Cal. App. 1998) (consent judgments generally not appealable)
- Degnan v. Morrow, 2 Cal.App.3d 358 (Cal. App. 1969) (interlocutory judgments not appealable unless statute provides)
- Wackeen v. Malis, 97 Cal.App.4th 429 (Cal. App. 2002) (retention of jurisdiction under §664.6; procedural requirements; limits on enforcement)
- Don Jose’s Restaurant, Inc. v. Truck Ins. Exchange, 53 Cal.App.4th 115 (Cal. App. 1997) (party cannot confer appellate jurisdiction by agreement where none exists)
- Elliott & Ten Eyck Partnership v. City of Long Beach, 57 Cal.App.4th 495 (Cal. App. 1997) (waiver of appeal rights; enforceability guidance)
- Pratt v. Gursey, Schneider & Co., 80 Cal.App.4th 1105 (Cal. App. 2000) (expressly waiving right to appeal permissible)