Opinion
D071034
05-01-2018
PARADISO IN TERRA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. PERRY & PAPENHAUSEN, INC. et al., Defendants and Respondents.
Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch and Kendra J. Hall, for Plaintiff and Appellant. Schwerdtfeger Law Group, Sean D. Schwerdtfeger and Catherine L. Coughlin; Beud Gilbert and Franklyn D. Jeans, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 relying 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. 37-2009-0088289) APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Ronald L. Styn, Judge. Dismissed as moot. Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch and Kendra J. Hall, for Plaintiff and Appellant. Schwerdtfeger Law Group, Sean D. Schwerdtfeger and Catherine L. Coughlin; Beud Gilbert and Franklyn D. Jeans, for Defendants and Respondents.
William (Bill) Dickerson, his wife Heidi Dickerson, and Paradiso in Terra LLC (Paradiso, and collectively, Plaintiffs) sued general contractor Perry & Papenhausen, Inc. (P&P), its principals, and Papenhausen Construction (Defendants), as well as their subcontractors, based on the allegedly defective construction of Plaintiffs' home. Defendants cross-complained for, among other things, breach of contract. Dickerson recovered damages, and the other parties recovered nothing. Paradiso appeals from an award of costs to Defendants. We conclude the appeal is moot, in light of our partial reversal and remand for further proceedings in the nonpublished opinion Dickerson v. Perry & Papenhausen, Inc. et al. (Apr. 30, 2018, D069248) (Dickerson), and the appeal is dismissed.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The parties filed motions to augment the record, which we need not and do not address in light of our disposition. Defendants did not file their appendix with their brief, but Paradiso's reply referenced it and Defendants subsequently filed it, most documents therein were superior court records, and we utilize it for this factual summary. --------
In our opinion in Dickerson, we summarized the facts concerning construction of Plaintiffs' home and the litigation, and need not repeat them. It suffices to say that the jury returned a special verdict awarding damages to Bill, Paradiso, and P&P. Defendants successfully moved to set off a negligence award to Bill and Paradiso by pretrial settlements with the contractors. Bill then moved to elect his remedy for the defect damages pursuant to his contract claim. The court granted Bill's request, resulting in Bill recovering damages and Paradiso and Defendants recovering nothing. Defendants subsequently obtained an award of costs against Paradiso.
DISCUSSION
In Dickerson, the parties appealed from the judgment, and we affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions. Specifically, we directed the trial court to deny Dickerson's request for election of remedy and to conduct further posttrial proceedings as the court determines is necessary and appropriate for entry of judgment.
Here, Paradiso appeals from a postjudgment award of costs to Defendants, contending the trial court lacked jurisdiction to make the award and abused its discretion in doing so. We conclude this issue is moot in light of our disposition in Dickerson. (Cf. Foothill Communities Coalition v. County of Orange (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1302, 1322.)
DISPOSITION
This appeal is dismissed as moot. The parties are to bear their own costs on appeal.
BENKE, Acting P. J. WE CONCUR: IRION, J. GUERRERO, J.