Zeppenfeld

Zeppenfeld v. Reilley CA1/4

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 30, 2014A138668California1,238 words

Opinion

Opinion

Rivera, J.

Filed 6/30/14 Zeppenfeld v. Reilley CA1/

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

DON ZEPPENFELD et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents,

A138668

v. MARTIN REILLEY, (Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. SCV 226091) Defendant and Appellant.

Martin Reilley purports to appeal from a “final judgment after remand” entered on March 19, 2013, though the appeal seeks to review an order denying attorney fees entered more than a year earlier on February 6, 2012. Don and Kathy Zeppenfeld (respondents) have moved for sanctions and attorney fees, contending that the appeal is frivolous. We dismiss the appeal and remand the matter to the trial court for a determination of the amount of attorney fees to be awarded on appeal.

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

We have…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.