From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Weiss v. Corfield

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, First Division
Oct 9, 2008
No. D052164 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 9, 2008)

Opinion


ALLEN WEISS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. MICHAEL CORFIELD et al., Defendants and Respondents. D052164 California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, First Division October 9, 2008

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

APPEAL from an order and judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Joan M. Lewis, Judge. Super. Ct. No. GIC864820

McINTYRE, J.

Allen Weiss appeals, in propria persona, from an order granting the motion of Michael A. Corfield and Borchard & Baur, APC (together Defendants) to change venue and a judgment dismissing this action based on his failure to pay the costs to transfer the action. He contends the trial court erred in changing venue and dismissing the matter.

We have no jurisdiction over this appeal as to the order changing venue and thus dismiss the appeal as to this order. Insofar as Weiss appeals from the judgment dismissing this action, we conclude that the appeal is without merit and affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Weiss, an investment advisor, hired Defendants in March 2003 to represent him in a securities related action filed against him in Los Angeles County. (Three JW Partnership v. Weiss (Super. Ct. L.A. County, 2003, No. BC292774 (Three JW).) The Los Angeles trial court relieved Defendants as counsel of record for Weiss in the Three JW matter and ultimately entered a default judgment against him.

Weiss filed the instant action alleging, among other things, that Defendants committed malpractice in the Three JW matter. The trial court granted Defendants' motion to transfer the action to Orange County and ordered Weiss to pay all costs associated with the transfer. When Weiss failed to timely pay the transfer costs, Defendants moved to dismiss the action. Weiss did not oppose the motion, but sought reconsideration of the transfer order. The trial court denied reconsideration and dismissed the action. Weiss timely appealed from the judgment of dismissal.

DISCUSSION

As a preliminary matter, we lack jurisdiction to review the order changing venue because it is a nonappealable order that is subject to review only by a petition for a writ of mandate filed within 20 days after service of the superior court order. (Code Civ. Proc., § 400; Calhoun v. Vallejo City Unified School Dist. (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 39, 41-42.) (All undesignated statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.) This was not done; accordingly, we do not address the parties' arguments regarding this order.

To the extent Weiss appeals from the judgment of dismissal, his opening brief contains no argument that the trial court erred in granting the motion. Weiss's failure to present any argument "constitutes a waiver of the issue on appeal. [Citations.]" (Berger v. California Ins. Guarantee Ass'n (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 989, 1007, fn. omitted.) Weiss is not exempt from the rules of appellate procedure just because he is representing himself on appeal in propria persona. (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246-1247.)

Even if we were to speculate on the nature of Weiss's appeal, we see no basis in the record to disturb the judgment of dismissal. Where, as here, a transfer is ordered because an action was filed in the wrong court, costs and fees for the transfer must be paid by the plaintiff before the transfer is made. (§ 399, subd. (a).) If payment is not made within 30 days after service of notice of the order, the court on noticed motion by any party may dismiss the action. (Ibid.) The dismissal is "without prejudice to the cause on the condition that no other action on the cause may be commenced in another court prior to satisfaction of the court's order for costs and fees." (Ibid.)

Here, the trial court served written notice of the transfer order on July 20, 2007, and, allowing ten days for service by out-of-state mail (§ 1013, subd. (a)), Weiss had until August 30, 2007 to pay the transfer costs. Weiss failed to pay the transfer costs and the trial court properly dismissed the action in November 2007.

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed as to the order granting the motion to change venue. The judgment dismissing the action is affirmed. Defendants are entitled to their costs on appeal.

WE CONCUR: HALLER, Acting P. J., O'ROURKE, J.


Summaries of

Weiss v. Corfield

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, First Division
Oct 9, 2008
No. D052164 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 9, 2008)
Case details for

Weiss v. Corfield

Case Details

Full title:ALLEN WEISS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. MICHAEL CORFIELD et al.…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, First Division

Date published: Oct 9, 2008

Citations

No. D052164 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 9, 2008)