Such a determination is substantially the same as a final judgment in an independent proceeding.'" (Sanchez v. Westlake Services, LLC (2022) 73 Cal.App.5th 1100, 1107 (Sanchez).)
The existence of an appealable judgment or order is a jurisdictional prerequisite to an appeal. (Jennings v. Maralle (1994) 8 Cal.4th 121, 126; see Sanchez v. Westlake Services, LLC (2022) 73 Cal.App.5th 1100, 1105 (Sanchez).)
(Code Civ. Proc., § 904.1, subd. (a); Sanchez v. Westlake Services, LLC (2022) 73 Cal.App.5th 1100, 1105 (Sanchez).
Covington, Rocket Lawyer, and Acendi each argue, and we agree, that the orders in question are appealable under the collateral order doctrine. (See Sanchezv. Westlake Services, LLC (2022) 73 Cal.App.5th 1100, 1107, 289 Cal.Rptr.3d 93; Diepenbrockv. Brown (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 743, 746, 145 Cal.Rptr.3d 659.) Discussion
) A similar argument on similar facts was made and rejected in Sanchez v. Westlake Services, LLC. (2022) 73 Cal.App.5th 1100. First, there is no relief available because Way Forward did not seek to appeal from the ultimate dismissal; it is only trying to appeal the denial of its earlier section 473 motion. (Sanchez, at pp. 1105-1106.)
In contrast to the federal law on which Volokh relies, under California law, a prerequisite to a collateral order is that the order "direct[s] the payment of money or performance of an act." (Longobardo, at p. 434, 310 Cal. Rptr.3d 877; Sanchez v. Westlake Services, LLC (2022) 73 Cal.App.5th 1100, 1107, 289 Cal.Rptr.3d 93 [to qualify as collateral order must direct the payment of money or performance of an act]; see also Serrano v. Stefan Merli Plastering Co., Inc. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1014, 1026, 76 Cal.Rptr.3d 559 ["The collateral order doctrine holds that an order that finally determines a matter that is distinct and severable from the main issues in the proceeding and that directs the payment of money or performance of some other act is appealable."]; but see Muller v. Fresno Community Hospital & Medical Center (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 887, 905, 91 Cal.Rptr.3d 617 [finding an order denying sanctions appealable as a collateral order].)
Covington, Rocket Lawyer, and Acendi each argue, and we agree, that the orders in question are appealable under the collateral order doctrine. (See Sanchez v. Westlake Services, LLC (2022) 73 Cal.App.5th 1100, 1107, 289 Cal.Rptr.3d 93; Diepenbrock v. Brown (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 743, 746, 145 Cal.Rptr.3d 659.) Discussion
Thus, the existence of an appealable judgment or order is a jurisdictional prerequisite to an appeal. (Jennings v. Marralle (1994) 8 Cal.4th 121, 126; see Sanchez v. Westlake Services, LLC (2022) 73 Cal.App.5th 1100, 1105.) Further, an order denying attorney fees that is made prior to entry of judgment (an interim order) is generally considered nonappealable.
(Longobardo v. Avco Corp. (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 429, 433-434; Sanchez v. Westlake Services, LLC (2022) 73 Cal.App.5th 1100, 1107-1108.)
This court has discretion to treat a premature notice of appeal as taken from a subsequent order of dismissal or judgment. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.104(d); Sanchez v. Westlake Services, LLC (2022) 73 Cal.App.5th 1100, 1105.) Similarly, "when the trial court has sustained a demurrer to all of the complaint's causes of action, appellate courts may deem the order to incorporate a judgment of dismissal, since all that is left to make the order appealable is the formality of the entry of a dismissal order or judgment."