From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Boktor v. Altemus

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Second Division
Mar 14, 2011
No. B219943 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 14, 2011)

Opinion

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. SC084579, Jacqueline A. Connor, Judge.

Anton Boktor, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Clasen, Raffalow & Rhoads, Perry M. Forrester for Defendant and Respondent.


BOREN, P.J.

Anton Boktor challenges an order sustaining demurrers without leave to amend. The order is not an appealable judgment. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

FACTS

This is Boktor’s second appeal in this case. Previously, he appealed the dismissal of his lawsuit for a delay in prosecution. We determined that the trial court lacked discretion to dismiss Boktor’s case only 13 months after it was filed. (Boktor v. Altemus (Aug. 1. 2008, B196935 [nonpub. opn.].) The opinion only sets aside the dismissal: it does not address Boktor’s fruitless attempts to obtain a default judgment against Altemus.

On March 5, 2009, Altemus demurred to Boktor’s complaint. Boktor filed no opposition. On April 13, 2009, the trial court sustained the demurrers without leave to amend because Boktor’s complaint fails to state a cause of action. The court observed that Boktor filed seven requests for entry of default, all of which were rejected “due to defective proofs of service resulting in a lack of evidence that defendant was properly served with the summons and complaint.”

Boktor sought reconsideration, arguing that our opinion in B196935 constituted a judgment in his favor, even on the issue of default. He reasoned-incorrectly-that Altemus had no right to demur to his complaint. Boktor presented the trial court with a document entitled “Judgment in Favor of Plaintiff Anton Boktor.” The court refused to sign it because the “demurrer dated 4-13-09 was not a judgment in favor of the plaintiff.” Boktor filed a notice of appeal on October 13, 2009.

DISCUSSION

Boktor appeals from the trial court’s minute order granting Altemus’s demurrer. No appeal can be taken from an order sustaining a demurrer. (Hill v. City of Long Beach (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1684, 1695.) An appeal can be taken only after the trial court signs an order of dismissal. (Ibid.; Code Civ. Proc., § 581d.) An appeal taken from an order sustaining a demurrer must be dismissed. (Hill v. City of Long Beach, supra, 33 Cal.App.4th at p. 1696.)

In this instance, Boktor asked the trial court to sign a document awarding judgment in his favor. In fact, Boktor lost the case. Boktor does not have an appealable order because he presented a proposed judgment falsely representing that he won the case. Unsurprisingly, the trial court rejected the sham proposed judgment.

On February 23, 2011, we sent Boktor a letter giving him an opportunity to present this Court with an appealable judgment. (Gov. Code, § 68081.) He did not timely respond to the letter. We now dismiss his appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. (Hill v. City of Long Beach, supra, 33 Cal.App.4th at p. 1696.)

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Respondent Altemus is awarded her costs on appeal.

We concur: ASHMANN-GERST, J., CHAVEZ, J.


Summaries of

Boktor v. Altemus

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Second Division
Mar 14, 2011
No. B219943 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 14, 2011)
Case details for

Boktor v. Altemus

Case Details

Full title:ANTON BOKTOR, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. JANICE V. ALTEMUS, Defendant and…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Second District, Second Division

Date published: Mar 14, 2011

Citations

No. B219943 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 14, 2011)