Stasz

Stasz v. Eisenberg

Good Law
120 Cal. Rptr. 3d 21·190 Cal. App. 4th 1032·2010 Cal. App. LEXIS 2074
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 10, 2010No. B217470California2,583 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Kriegler, J.

The trial court dismissed the action filed by plaintiff and appellant Shanel Stasz against defendants and respondents Michael Eisenberg 1 and Bernard A. Burk, after Stasz failed to pay costs and attorney fees ordered when the court transferred the action to San Francisco pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 399, subdivision (a). 2 Stasz argues on appeal she was not required to pay the transfer fee because she was never served with notice of finality of the order under section 399, the motion to dismiss was untimely, and she was deprived of her due process right to file a motion for reconsideration.

We affirm. Stasz was not entitled to notice of finality of the transfer order under section 399, subdivision (a), because she did not challenge the order by way of writ of mandate. In addition, we reject the arguments that the motion to dismiss was not timely filed and Stasz was improperly denied an opportunity to seek reconsideration.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Stasz’s operative first amended complaint alleged multiple causes of action against defendants based on her claim to entitlement of property from the estate of Hugo W. Quackenbush, who had died in San Francisco. Stasz…

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.