Kurwa v. Kislinger
57 Cal. 4th 1097
Cal.2013Background
- Kurwa and Kislinger, ophthalmologists, formed a corporation to provide HMO services; Kurwa later had his medical license suspended and Kislinger took over services.
- Kurwa sued for causes including breach of fiduciary duty and defamation; Kislinger cross-complained for defamation.
- Trial court ruled there was no fiduciary duty between them as corporate principals; Kurwa conceded dismissal with prejudice of fiduciary and other claims.
- The parties stipulated to dismiss the defamation claims (both sides) without prejudice and to waive/toll applicable statutes of limitations so those claims could be revived after any appeal.
- The trial court entered judgment disposing of most claims but not the dismissed-but-preserved defamation counts; Kurwa appealed and the Court of Appeal treated the judgment as final and reversed on the merits. The Supreme Court granted review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a judgment is appealable when some causes of action are dismissed without prejudice but preserved by stipulation (e.g., tolling/waiver of limitations) | Kurwa: dismissal without prejudice ends the trial‑court proceedings on those counts and therefore the judgment disposing other claims is final and appealable | Kislinger: the stipulation preserving dismissed claims keeps them "legally alive," making the judgment interlocutory and not appealable | Held: Not appealable — agreement preserving dismissed claims defeats finality under the one final judgment rule. |
| Whether formal incorporation of the parties' stipulation into the written judgment is required for Don Jose’s rule to apply | Kurwa: because the stipulation wasn't recited in the final judgment, the judgment is final | Kislinger: incorporation is not dispositive; the substance of the agreement controls | Held: Incorporation is not dispositive; an on‑the‑record stipulation preserving claims suffices to render the judgment nonfinal. |
| Whether Morehart/one final judgment rule permits piecemeal appeals where parties agree to hold some claims in abeyance | Kurwa: seeks narrower reading allowing more party autonomy | Kislinger: one final judgment rule prohibits such piecemeal appellate jurisdiction regardless of party agreement | Held: One final judgment rule controls; Don Jose’s line correctly bars appeals where dismissed claims are preserved for future litigation. |
| Proper remedy for seeking review of interlocutory rulings when unusual hardship exists | Kurwa: (implicit) appeal is the appropriate route here | Kislinger: writ petition is the proper vehicle for interlocutory review | Held: Writ of mandate (not appeal) is the proper means to seek review of interlocutory judgments in extraordinary circumstances. |
Key Cases Cited
- Morehart v. County of Santa Barbara, 7 Cal.4th 725 (1994) (codifies California one final judgment rule: appealability requires disposition of all causes between the parties)
- Don Jose’s Restaurant, Inc. v. Truck Ins. Exchange, 53 Cal.App.4th 115 (1997) (agreements preserving dismissed claims by tolling/waiver render judgment nonfinal and nonappealable)
- Jackson v. Wells Fargo Bank, 54 Cal.App.4th 240 (1997) (following Don Jose’s: stipulation preserving dismissed claim prevents separate appellate treatment)
- Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation Dist., 205 Cal.App.4th 650 (2012) (distinguishes dismissals without preservation from stipulated preservations; appealable if dismissal without prejudice lacks agreement enabling revival)