Michael D. v. Joseph S. CA4/1

DISCUSSION

A. The scope of this appeal does not include a review of the merits of the CHRO entered in this or any other case.

In addition to determining the amount of attorney’s fees Michael could recover during the January 2023 hearing, the court entertained two requests by Joseph. The first was his motion filed in October 2022 to reconsider the CHRO entered against him in July 2022. The court denied this motion as untimely under section 1008, which requires such a motion to be filed within

During oral argument, Joseph claimed for the first time that he objected to specific line items in Michael’s attorneys’ billing entries. These alleged objections refer to one line item in each of six billing entries. Michael was billed $2,070 for these entries—each of which also contained at least one other line item that Joseph took no issue with. Although mislabeled a “judgment,” the order granting Michael’s motion for attorney’s fees is properly appealable as a postjudgment order. (See § 904.1, subd. (a)(2).) 3 ten days of the entry of the challenged order. (§ 1008, subds. (a) & (e).) The second was his unsuccessful request for a CHRO against Michael, which Joseph filed in…