Harris

Harris v. University Village Thousand Oaks CCRC CA2/6

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 21, 2022B311972California2,784 words

Opinion

Opinion

Tangeman, J.

DISCUSSION

Statutory basis for appeal Appellants purport to appeal pursuant to Code of

3 For purposes of this appeal, we consider “costs” as separate from “attorney’s fees.” (Compare Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.1700, 3.1702, 8.278(d) [distinguishing costs from attorney’s fees] with Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (a)(10) [listing attorney’s fees as a recoverable cost when authorized by contract or law] and Civ. Code, § 1717, subd. (a) [attorney’s fees are “an element” of costs].)

3 Civil Procedure4 sections 904.1, subdivision (a)(2), and 1294, subdivision (e). We conclude that neither section authorizes this appeal. An appealable order or judgment “is a jurisdictional prerequisite to an appeal.” (Jennings v. Marralle (1994) 8 Cal.4th 121, 126.) “The right to appeal is wholly statutory. [Citation.]” (Dana Point Safe Harbor Collective v. Superior Court (2010) 51 Cal.4th 1, 5.) Section 904.1 “‘essentially codifies the “one final judgment rule,”’’” which “‘is based on the theory that piecemeal appeals are oppressive and costly, and that optimal appellate review is achieved by allowing appeals only after the entire action is resolved in the trial court. Ordinarily, there can be…

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.