Verizon California v. Charter Communications CA2/5

facts, a joint request for judicial notice, and trial briefs. The court ruled Verizon’s negligence, if any, “must be deemed as passive” and therefore, Verizon was entitled to indemnification of the sums paid to Romero in settlement of his lawsuit as well as its reasonable costs of litigation in defense of that claim. The court entered judgment against Charter in the amount of $830,717.20.

Contemporaneously with the filing of its notice of appeal, Charter paid the outstanding judgment in full, expressly advising Verizon that, by reason of its satisfaction of the judgment, it did not intend to, and did not, waive its right to appeal.

VERIZON’S REQUEST TO DISMISS APPEAL

Although it did not file a motion to dismiss, Verizon invites this court to dismiss the appeal because Charter voluntarily complied with the terms of the judgment. We decline the invitation. Verizon cites Reitano v. Yankwich (1951) 38 Cal.2d 1and A.L.L. Roofing & Bldg. Materials Corp. v. Community Bank (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 356, in support of its contention that Charter’s payment of the judgment constituted a waiver of its appellate rights and that no exception “to the waiver rule, such as when the judgment was…