Seablom v. Wendel

Full title: CYNTHIA SEABLOM, Cross-complainant and Respondent, v. CHRISTINE WENDEL…

Court: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE

Date published: Sep 29, 2014

B248665 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 29, 2014)

Opinion

B248665

09-29-2014

CYNTHIA SEABLOM, Cross-complainant and Respondent, v. CHRISTINE WENDEL, Cross-defendant and Appellant.

Christine Wendel, in pro. per., for Cross-defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Cross-complainant and Respondent.

ROTHSCHILD, P. J.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. KC063482) APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Dan Thomas Oki, Judge. Appeal dismissed.

__________

Christine Wendel, in pro. per., for Cross-defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Cross-complainant and Respondent.

__________

Christine Wendel appealed from the May 7, 2013 order appointing a receiver in a cross-action brought against her by Cynthia Seablom and an underlying action between CPS Signage & Marketing Corporation, a company affiliated with Wendel, and Seablom. Wendel contends that the May 7, 2013 order is void because the trial court did not direct the posting of a bond along with the receiver appointment. The court, however, entered a subsequent order on May 20, 2013, in which it did direct the posting of a bond as a condition of the receiver appointment. Wendel maintains that the court lacked jurisdiction to enter the May 20, 2013 order because she already had filed a notice of appeal from the May 7, 2013 order. But Wendel did not appeal from the May 20, 2013 order and accordingly has no basis to challenge it. The May 20, 2013 order thus is intact and directs the posting of a bond, which is Wendel's only complaint about the May 7, 2013 order. As a result, Wendel's appeal from the May 7, 2013 order based on the failure to direct the posting of a bond is moot.

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

ROTHSCHILD, P. J. We concur:

JOHNSON, J.

MILLER, J.^*

* Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, Assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.