The disentitlement doctrine allows an appellate court to use its inherent power to dismiss an appeal based on a party's failure to comply with a lower court order. (See Stoltenberg v. Ampton Investments, Inc. (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1229-1230 (Stoltenberg).) "A party to an action cannot . . . ask the aid and assistance of a court in hearing his demands while he stands in an attitude of contempt to legal orders and processes of the courts of this state."
Under the disentitlement doctrine, "[a]n appellate court has the inherent power . . . to dismiss an appeal by a party that refuses to comply with a lower court order." (Stoltenberg v. Ampton Investments (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1229 (Stoltenberg).) As the Supreme Court has explained, "A party to an action cannot, with right or reason, ask the aid and assistance of a court in hearing his demands while he stands in an attitude of contempt to legal orders and processes of the courts of this state."
"A party to an action cannot, with right or reason, ask the aid and assistance of a court in hearing his demands while he stands in an attitude of contempt to legal orders and processes of the courts of this state." (MacPherson v. MacPherson (1939) 13 Cal.2d 271, 277; see also Stoltenberg v. Ampton Investments Inc. (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1230 (Stoltenberg).) This principle, what courts term the "disentitlement doctrine," gives an appellate court inherent power to dismiss an appeal where an appealing party has refused to comply with lower court orders (Stoltenberg, at p. 1229; Ironridge Global IV, Ltd. v. ScripsAmerica, Inc. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 259, 265) or has "engaged in obstructive tactics."
This doctrine, known as "disentitlement," recognizes an appellate court's "inherent power ... to dismiss an appeal by a party that refuses to comply with a lower court order." ( Stoltenberg v. Ampton Investments, Inc. (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1229, 159 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 ( Stoltenberg ).) Dismissal is not a punishment for a party's contemptuous acts.
A. The Disentitlement Doctrine An appellate court has the inherent power under the disentitlement doctrine to dismiss an appeal by a party that refuses to comply with a trial court order. (Ironridge Global IV, Ltd. v. ScripsAmerica, Inc. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 259, 265 (Ironridge); Gwartz v. Weilert (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 750, 757 (Gwartz); Stoltenberg v. Ampton Investments, Inc. (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1229 (Stoltenberg).) "This doctrine of disentitlement is not jurisdictional, but is a discretionary tool that may be used to dismiss an appeal when the balance of the equitable concerns makes dismissal an appropriate sanction.
The disentitlement doctrine empowers a reviewing court to dismiss an appeal by a party who refuses to comply with trial court orders. (Stoltenberg v. Ampton Investments, Inc. (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1229 (Stoltenberg).) It is not designed to punish a party, but to vindicate the court's interest in inducing compliance with presumptively valid orders.
[Citation.]’ " ( Stoltenberg v. Ampton Investments, Inc. (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1231, 159 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 ( Stoltenberg. )
Nor was it the type of “obstructive” tactic that would warrant the extreme sanction of dismissal of the appeal. (See Stoltenberg v. Ampton Investments, Inc. (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1229‒1231 (Stoltenberg) [collecting cases].) Thus, although we do not approve of counsel's silence, we decline to exercise our discretion to dismiss the appeal on that basis.
Respondent has suggested that we dismiss the appeals under the disentitlement doctrine. "An appellate court has the inherent power to dismiss an appeal by a party that refuses to comply with a lower court order. (Stoltenberg v. Ampton Investments, Inc. (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1229 (Stoltenberg).) This doctrine of disentitlement is not jurisdictional, but is a discretionary tool that may be used to dismiss an appeal when the balance of the equitable concerns makes dismissal an appropriate sanction.
The argument has merit. In Stoltenberg v. Ampton Investments, Inc. (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1225 (Stoltenberg), the court summarized the disentitlement doctrine and its application as follows: "An appellate court has the inherent power, under the 'disentitlement doctrine,' to dismiss an appeal by a party that refuses to comply with a lower court order. [Citations.] As the Supreme Court observed in MacPherson v. MacPherson [(1939)] 13 Cal.2d [271,] 277, 'A party to an action cannot, with right or reason, ask the aid and assistance of a court in hearing his demands while he stands in an attitude of contempt to legal orders and processes of the courts of this state. [Citations.]' [¶] . . . No formal judgment of contempt is required; an appellate court 'may dismiss an appeal where there has been willful disobedience or obstructive tactics.