Hassan v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Corp. CA6, H044053

ShaRon Hassan suffered a trip-and-fall (Oct. 28, 2013) and filed three separate pro se actions against the City of San Jose, Santa Clara County Law Library (and others), and the County of Santa Clara; the cases were consolidated and one became the lead case.
In the County Law Library action Hassan filed a lengthy Second Amended Complaint (13 causes of action) asserting premises liability and related claims and naming Liberty Mutual and Golden Eagle (insurance companies) among defendants.
The Insurance Defendants demurred to the Second Amended Complaint; on May 14, 2015 the trial court sustained their demurrers without leave to amend (grounds: failure to state facts against them, uncertainty, misjoinder).
A judgment in favor of the Insurance Defendants was entered December 4, 2015; Hassan later filed postjudgment motions and notices of appeal.
The trial court denied Hassan’s motion to reconsider on March 28, 2016, but the Court of Appeal held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to rule on that motion because Hassan had already filed valid appeals that divested the trial court of authority over matters embraced by the appeal.
The Court of Appeal affirmed the December 4, 2015 judgment for the Insurance Defendants and reversed the March 28, 2016 postjudgment order as void.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Appealability of rulings	Hassan sought to appeal many post-pleading orders and demurrer rulings	Only final judgments and certain postjudgment orders are appealable	Only Dec. 4, 2015 judgment was a proper appealable judgment; March 28, 2016 order was reviewable but void for lack of trial-court jurisdiction and reversed
Consolidation of cases	Consolidation was prejudicial and confusing to an inexperienced pro se plaintiff	Consolidation was procedurally proper; Hassan did not oppose with evidence at hearing	Claim forfeited on appeal; Hassan failed to show legal error or prejudice
Demurrer sustained without leave to amend	Hassan says she could cure defects and asked for leave to amend	Insurance Defendants: complaint failed to state claims against them; pleading was uncertain; misjoinder	Hassan failed to show how amendment could cure defects; demurrer sustain affirmed
Pre-filing meet-and-confer (Code Civ. Proc. §430.41)	Defendants did not meet and confer before demurring	§430.41 not in effect when demurrer filed; no timely objection preserved	Statute not applicable; Hassan failed to preserve claim; forfeited
Postjudgment motion to reconsider / jurisdiction	Hassan appealed denial of reconsideration	Trial court lacked power to rule after appeals divested jurisdiction	Motion denial reversed as void because trial court was divested of jurisdiction during pendency of appeal

Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino, 35 Cal.4th 180 (Cal. 2005) (appeal divests trial court of jurisdiction over matters embraced by the appeal; automatic stay under §916 protects appellate jurisdiction)
Jameson v. Desta, 5 Cal.5th 594 (Cal. 2018) (appellant bears burden to show reversible error and provide adequate record)
Denham v. Superior Court, 2 Cal.3d 557 (Cal. 1970) (trial-court rulings presumed correct; error must be affirmatively shown)
Blank v. Kirwan, 39 Cal.3d 311 (Cal. 1985) (plaintiff bears burden to show an amendment could cure defects when demurrer sustained)
In re Zeth S., 31 Cal.4th 396 (Cal. 2003) (appeal reviews the correctness of a judgment as of the time of its rendition; appellate review generally confined to the record before the trial court)
Ryan v. Rosenfeld, 3 Cal.5th 124 (Cal. 2017) (postjudgment orders denying relief under §663 are appealable)
Phelan v. Superior Court, 35 Cal.2d 363 (Cal. 1950) (when law allows appeal from void judgment or order, the reviewing court may reverse the void order)