DISCUSSION

In California, an appeal may be taken from a final judgment, but not an interlocutory judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., § 904.1, subd. (a)(1).) The California Supreme Court has explained that this rule, also known as the “the one final judgment rule, precludes an appeal from a judgment disposing of fewer than all the causes of action extant between the parties, even if the remaining causes of action have been severed for trial from those decided by the judgment.” (Kurwa v. Kislinger (2013) 57 Cal.4th 1097, 1101.) “ ‘It is not the form of the decree but the substance and effect of the adjudication which

2 Other parties are involved in the action and cross-action, but their positions are not presently at issue.

2 is determinative. As a general test, which must be adapted to the particular circumstances of the individual case, it may be said that where no issue is left for future consideration except the fact of compliance or noncompliance with the terms of the first decree, that decree is final, but where anything further in the nature of judicial action on the part of the court is essential to a final determination of the rights of the parties, the decree is interlocutory.’ [Citations.]” (Griset v. Fair Political Practices Com'n (2001) 25 Cal.4th 688, 698.) The theory of the rule is that “ ‘piecemeal disposition and multiple appeals in a single action would be oppressive and costly, and that a review of intermediate rulings should await the final disposition of the case.’ [Citations.]” (Id. at p. 697.) Ordinarily, a cross-complaint is not considered sufficiently independent to allow a separate final judgment to be entered upon it, unless the judgment or order is final as to a specific party. (Sjoberg v. Hastorf (1948) 33 Cal.2d 116, 118; Daon Corp. v. Place Homeowners Assn. (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1449, 1456; County of Santa Clara v. Support, Inc. (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 687, 703.) The Callahans maintain that this case comes within the exception to the rule. In their view, the summary judgment ruling finally adjudicates the ownership of the Property in favor of 2nd Street. This argument fails as 2nd Street’s claims against the Callahans are not limited to the ownership of the Property. Rather, 2nd Street seeks a declaration that the Callahans have no interest in: (1) the Permit or in any cannabis permit in which 2nd Street may have some interest; (2) any lease with 2nd Street; (3) any rights to occupy the Property; (4) any right to operate a cannabis dispensary on the Property; and (5) any ownership interest in any other cannabis projects to which 2nd Street is a party and any right to compensation arising therefrom.

3 Accordingly, even without the Callahans’s cross-claims against 2nd Street, the litigation between the parties is far from over. Indeed, trial on the TAC and cross-complaint is set to begin on April 26, 2021. An appeal at this point would be premature and violative of the policy underlying the one final judgment rule.

DISPOSITION

The Callahans’s appeal is dismissed.

4 _________________________ Petrou, Acting P.J.

WE CONCUR:

_________________________ Jackson, J.

_________________________ Wiseman, J.*

A161864

* Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

5