Shisler v. Sanfer Sports Cars, Inc.

42 Citing cases

  1. Brown v. Desert Christian Center

    193 Cal.App.4th 733 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 34 times
    In Brown v. Desert Christian Center (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 733, the court distinguished Gutting because that case "does not address the question of whether, or under what conditions, a cost award may be based on or incidental to a judgment of dismissal that was entered under a trial court's jurisdiction to determine jurisdiction.

    The question of whether or not the trial court had jurisdiction to award costs under the circumstances presented is essentially one of law; thus, we conduct an independent review. ( Shisler v. Sanfer Sports Cars, Inc. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1, 6 [ 83 Cal.Rptr.3d 771] ( Shisler); Salawy v. Ocean Towers Housing Corp. (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 664, 669 [ 17 Cal.Rptr.3d 427].) I.

  2. Gassner v. Stasa

    30 Cal.App.5th 346 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018)   Cited 19 times
    In Gassner, our colleagues in Division Two held in view of a split of authority that a costs order entered after a voluntary dismissal without prejudice was appealable.

    Gassner did file a motion to vacate. (See Shisler v. Sanfer Sports Cars, Inc. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1, 5, fn. 2, 83 Cal.Rptr.3d 771 [motion under Code Civ. Proc., § 473 is a motion to vacate for purposes of extending time to appeal].) Moreover, she filed the motion on August 31, 2016—well within the time to appeal from the August 4, 2016 order.

  3. Sardell v. Bresler

    No. B252589 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 25, 2015)

    ) An appeal also may be taken from an order denying a motion to vacate a void judgment -- a judgment issued in the absence of fundamental jurisdiction -- or an order denying a motion to vacate a judgment obtained by extrinsic fraud. (Carr v. Kamins (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 929, 933-934; accord, Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1009; Shisler v. Sanfer Sports Cars, Inc. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1, 5.) The appealability of motions to vacate brought under Code of Civil Procedure section 663 is the subject of conflicting authority.

  4. R.S. v. Pacificare Life Health Ins. Co.

    194 Cal.App.4th 192 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 11 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that under Missouri law "[t]he fact, rather than the amount or degree, of damages triggers a legal claim"

    (Cf. Shisler v. Sanfer Sports Cars, Inc. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1, 10 [ 83 Cal.Rptr.3d 771] [acknowledging difference between "`substantive law which gives or declares the right`"and "procedural" law which governs how the right is enforced]; Richardson v. Walter Land Co. (1953) 118 Cal.App.2d 459, 464-465 [ 258 P.2d 42] [counterclaim statute is "procedural in character and simply denies a defendant relief in the designated circumstances. It does not wipe out or invalidate the obligation."].

  5. Billon Enterprises, Inc. v. Camacho

    No. A123863 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 29, 2010)

    An order denying a post-judgment motion for relief from a judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, or denying a motion to vacate a void judgment, may be appealed separately even if the time has expired to appeal from the judgment itself. (Code Civ. Proc., § 904.1, subd. (a)(2); Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1008-1009; Shisler v. Sanfer Sports Cars, Inc. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1, 5 (Shisler).) Camacho’s motion was expressly brought under Code of Civil Procedure section 473 and argued that the default judgment was void.

  6. McLaughlin v. Tesla, Inc.

    22-cv-07849-SVK (N.D. Cal. Sep. 11, 2024)

    Shisler v. Sanfer Sports Cars, Inc., 167 Cal.App.4th 1, 10 (6th Dist. 2008) (citation omitted); accord City of Huntington Beach v. Becerra, 44 Cal.App. 5th 243, 268 (4th Dist. Div. 3 2020). Under this framework, evaluating the competency of an expert constitutes a procedural issue under California law because the expert's competency does not concern the giving or declaring of a right but instead concerns the method through which rights are enforced.

  7. Fish v. Santa Clara Cnty.

    Case No.18-cv-06671-VKD (N.D. Cal. Jul. 16, 2019)

    Thus, the CLRA fee-shifting "statutory provision requires the trial court to find that the plaintiff proceeded in subjective bad faith before it may award fees to a prevailing defendant." Shisler v. Sanfer Sports Cars, Inc., 167 Cal. App. 4th 1, 9 (2008). The party moving for attorneys' fees has the burden of proving that the plaintiff proceeded in subjective bad faith.

  8. Jones v. ConAgra Foods, Inc.

    No. C 12-01633 CRB (N.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2013)   Cited 1 times

    Thus, the CLRA fee-shifting "statutory provision requires the trial court to find that the plaintiff proceeded in subjective bad faith before it may award fees to a prevailing defendant." Shisler v. Sanfer Sports Cars, Inc., 167 Cal. App. 4th 1, 9 (2008)). The party moving for attorneys' fees has the burden of proving that the plaintiff proceeded in subjective bad faith.

  9. Holt v. Kormann

    Case No. SACV 11-01047 DOC (MLGx) (C.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2012)   Cited 4 times

    "[T]his statutory provision requires the trial court to find that the plaintiff proceeded in subjective bad faith before it may award fees to a prevailing defendant." Shisler v. Sanfer Sports Cars, Inc., 167 Cal.App.4th 1, 9 (2008). The moving party, here Defendants Kormann and KRR, have the burden of proof.

  10. Landreth v. Malik, 124 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 61, 49732 (2009)

    221 P.3d 1265 (Nev. 2009)   Cited 3 times

    Unlike lack of personal jurisdiction, however, a "lack of subject matter jurisdiction is a jurisdictional defect of the fundamental type. . . . where there is 'an entire absence of power to hear or determine the case."' Shisler v. Sanfer Sports Cars, Inc., 83 Cal. Rptr. 3d 771, 775 (Ct. App. 2008) (quotingAbelleira v. District Court of Appeal, Third District, 109 P.2d 942, 947 (Cal. 1941)). Thus, when the district court rendering a judgment lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the judgment is definitively void.