From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Colaco v. Cavotec SA

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE
Jul 11, 2018
G054068 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 11, 2018)

Opinion

G054068

07-11-2018

MICHAEL COLACO et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CAVOTEC SA et al., Defendants and Respondents.

Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth, Jason H. Anderson, Jason de Bretteville, Bradley E. Marrett, and Kenneth Paul Hsu for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Greenberg Gross, Alan A. Greenberg, Wayne R. Gross and Howard M. Privette for Defendants and Respondents.


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or reiving 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2012-00601735) OPINION Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, William D. Claster, Judge. Appeal dismissed as moot. Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth, Jason H. Anderson, Jason de Bretteville, Bradley E. Marrett, and Kenneth Paul Hsu for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Greenberg Gross, Alan A. Greenberg, Wayne R. Gross and Howard M. Privette for Defendants and Respondents.

* * *

Michael Colaco, April Barry, and Inet Airport Systems, Inc. appeal from an order denying appellants' motion to compel Cavotec Inet US, Inc. to accept appellants' satisfaction of the final judgment. This appeal stems from an underlying lawsuit and judgment described in our opinion issued in a companion appeal. (Colaco et al., v. Cavotec, SA, et al. (July 11, 2018, G052619 [nonpub. opn.].) In that appeal we reversed the judgment and remanded the matter to the trial court with directions to enter a new judgment.

This appeal concerns a dispute over the calculation of interest on the amount Colaco paid to satisfy the judgment. In July 2015 the trial court entered judgment awarding compensatory and punitive damages, but excluded an attorney fee award. After a hearing on attorney fees, the court in March 2016 awarded Cavotect Inet attorney fees and entered that amount on the judgment.

The parties disagreed on when interest began to accrue on the attorney fee portion of the judgment. Appellants argued interest started accruing in March 2016 when the trial court entered the attorney fee award, but the court agreed with Cavotec Inc.'s contention the postjudgment interest on the attorney fees portion of the judgment began when the court entered the July 2015 judgment. Appellants filed this appeal.

Our decision in the companion case to reverse the underlying judgment renders this appeal moot because Appellants seek an acknowledgment Colaco satisfied the judgment that we have overturned and therefore no longer exists. Because we cannot grant Appellants the relief they seek in this appeal, we must dismiss their appeal as moot. (Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 78.)

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed as moot. The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.

ARONSON, J. WE CONCUR: O'LEARY, P. J. MOORE, J.


Summaries of

Colaco v. Cavotec SA

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE
Jul 11, 2018
G054068 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 11, 2018)
Case details for

Colaco v. Cavotec SA

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL COLACO et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CAVOTEC SA et al.…

Court:COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE

Date published: Jul 11, 2018

Citations

G054068 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 11, 2018)

Citing Cases

Colaco v. Cavotec SA

In that companion appeal we reversed the judgment and remanded the matter back to the trial court with…