DISCUSSION

As noted above, appellant’s petition for writ of mandate was accompanied by a complaint for damages, which is still pending. Respondent thus contends this appeal from the order dismissing the petition for writ of mandate violates the single judgment rule and must be dismissed. In doing so, respondent relies upon Morehart v. County of Santa Barbara (1994) 7 Cal.4th 725 (Morehart), which held that “an appeal cannot be taken from a judgment that fails to complete the disposition of all the causes of action between the parties even if the causes of action disposed of by the judgment have been ordered to be tried separately, or may be characterized as ‘separate and independent’ from those remaining.” (Id. at p. 743.) Having reviewed this California Supreme Court authority, as well as cases that have followed it, we agree with respondent that dismissal is necessary on the ground that this appeal is not yet ripe. (Ibid.; accord City of Santa

2 Monica v. Stewart (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 43, 59 [an action does not become ripe until “it reaches, ‘but has not passed, the point that the facts have sufficiently congealed to permit an intelligent and useful decision to be made’ ”].) Simply put, in direct conflict with the holding of Morehart, appellant is attempting to appeal a judgment that fails to complete the disposition of all the causes of action between the parties, given that a separate trial, estimated to last seven days, is set to go forward on four surviving causes of action pursuant to which appellant seeks damages based upon alleged violations of his due process and equal protection rights.1 As such, dismissal of his appeal as premature is appropriate. In so concluding, we acknowledge the California Supreme Court in Morehart, after deciding the appeal was premature under the single judgment rule, ultimately decided to reach the merits of the case by treating the appeal as a petition for writ of mandate. The California Supreme Court based its decision in this regard on the unusual circumstances presented in that case, including (1) the existence of a significant body of prior case law indicating the appeal was proper, (2) the fact that both parties, as well as amici curiae, had fully briefed the controversy on appeal, and (3) the significant impact the case was expected to have throughout California. (Morehart, supra, 7 Cal.4th at pp. 744-746.) Here, however, we are not presented with such unusual circumstances. Despite the fact that respondent fully addressed the issue of the lack of unusual circumstances in this case when moving to dismiss, appellant has declined to offer any contrary showing. Nor are we aware of any particular circumstance in this case that would influence us to treat this appeal as a petition for writ of mandate. Accordingly, for the reasons provided, we conclude this appeal is premature under Morehart, supra, 7 Cal.4th 725, and must be dismissed.

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed.

1 As respondent notes, discovery has yet to begin with respect to the remaining causes of action and, as such, the parties likely will not be ready for trial for several months.

3 _________________________ Jenkins, J.

We concur:

_________________________ Pollak, Acting P. J.

_________________________ Siggins, J.

Christopher Smith v. City of Berkeley et al., A145281

4