MacAluso v. Superior Court
162 Cal. Rptr. 3d 318
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- Lennar obtained a >$50 million judgment against Marsch and pursued postjudgment collection, including subpoenas duces tecum to third-party witness Todd Macaluso (an attorney and ALF principal).
- Macaluso appeared at a judgment-debtor examination but refused to produce most subpoenaed documents and declined to answer many questions, asserting privacy and privilege objections.
- The trial court granted Lennar’s motion to compel, overruling objections and ordering Macaluso to produce documents by January 4, 2013.
- Macaluso timely filed a notice of appeal from the order and did not comply with the production deadline.
- The trial court treated the order as nonappealable, scheduled contempt proceedings for noncompliance, and Macaluso petitioned for a writ, arguing the notice of appeal divested the trial court of jurisdiction.
- The appellate court issued a writ directing the trial court to vacate the show-cause order and held the production order was appealable, so the appeal stayed enforcement/contempt proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an order compelling a third-party witness to produce documents at a §708.110 judgment-debtor exam is an appealable postjudgment order under §904.1(a)(2) | Macaluso: The order is appealable; his notice of appeal divested the trial court of jurisdiction and barred contempt for noncompliance | Lennar: The order is a routine discovery/postjudgment discovery order and nonappealable; trial court retained jurisdiction to enforce it despite the appeal | The order is appealable. The appellate court granted the writ, vacated the contempt OSC, and held the notice of appeal stayed enforcement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lakin v. Watkins Associated Indus., 6 Cal.4th 644 (1993) (postjudgment orders appealable only if issues differ from judgment appeal and order affects or enforces the judgment)
- Dana Point Safe Harbor Collective v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.4th 1 (2010) (order compelling compliance with subpoena is appealable when only compliance remains to be determined)
- Roden v. AmerisourceBergen Corp., 130 Cal.App.4th 211 (2005) (postjudgment discovery preparatory to later ruling is nonappealable)
- Varian Med. Sys., Inc. v. Delfino, 35 Cal.4th 180 (2005) (notice of appeal divests trial court of jurisdiction over matters encompassed by the appeal)
- Dow v. Superior Court, 140 Cal.App.2d 399 (1956) (appeal bars contempt proceedings for noncompliance with the appealed order)
- Smith v. Smith, 208 Cal.App.4th 1074 (2012) (collateral-order rationale supports appealability of orders that are final and severable)