Thursday, January 30, 2020

CSC Appealability opinion

Today the Cal Supreme Court issues an opinion about appealability of particular interest to lawyers:
This case presents a narrow question of procedural law: Does a Court of Appeal have jurisdiction to review an order directing an attorney to pay sanctions when the notice of appeal identifies the attorney’s client as the appealing party, but other indicia make clear that the attorney was the party seeking review? The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, concluding that the attorney’s client lacked standing to challenge the sanctions order and that the notice of appeal could not be liberally construed to include the omitted attorney.
We reverse the Court of Appeal’s dismissal and hold that, when it is clear from the record that the omitted attorney intended to participate in the appeal and the respondent was not misled or prejudiced by the omission, the rule of liberal construction compels that the notice be construed to include the omitted attorney. 
And, hey!, this is Justice Groban's first opinion, right?!

And here's another published appealability opinion today holding:
In this case of first impression, we determine that insurers have the right to appeal a small claims default judgment entered against their insureds. We conclude the insured’s failure to appear in small claims court does not annul the appeal right conferred upon the insurer by Code of Civil Procedure section 116.710, subdivision (c).