Wright

DISCUSSION

I. The Notice of Appeal is Timely At the outset, Noack argues Wright has not noticed an appeal from an appealable order or judgment. Noack points out Wright’s notice of appeal states he is appealing from the “Order after hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion to Tax Costs,” citing section 901.1, subdivision (a)(2). The notice of appeal was filed on April 2, 2013, and judgment was entered about two months later, on May 31, 2013. A notice of entry of judgment on verdict was filed on September 28, 2012. Wright argues we have the discretion to entertain his appeal under California Rules of Court, rule 8.104(d)(2), which states “[t]he reviewing court may treat a notice of appeal filed after the superior court has announced its intended ruling, but before it has

3 rendered judgment, as filed immediately after entry of judgment.” Here, the trial court issued its tentative ruling on February 7, 2013. Noack argues we should not exercise our discretion to treat Wright’s notice of appeal as timely but offers no compelling explanation as to how he is prejudiced by the premature filing. We shall exercise our discretion to consider Wright’s appeal. Noack also moved to strike Wright’s “Reply…