Appellant had argued for appealability under the collateral order doctrine. "[T]he California Supreme Court has historically described it, allows an appeal to be taken “[w]hen a court renders an interlocutory order collateral to the main issue, dispositive of the rights of the parties in relation to the collateral matter, and directing payment of money or performance of an act.” (In re Marriage of Skelley (1976) 18 Cal.3d 365, 368.)"
But "one recent decision has called into question whether this element [the directing payment of money or performance of an act] of the collateral order doctrine remains viable." (Muller v. Fresno Comm. Hosp. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 887.) Also, of course, " California’s summary judgment statute already provides for appellate review of denials of motions for summary judgment, but only through the writ review process." And that "existing writ procedure provides meaningful review for litigants ...."
Thus, 4/3 concludes: "an order denying a summary judgment motion based on the GARA statute of repose is not appealable because it does not direct the payment of money or performance of an act." This departs from Muller, but the Supreme Court's element regarding "directing payment of money/performance of an act" remains binding precedent.
The MetNew's article is Denial of Motion for Summary Judgment Is Not Appealable -- Fourth District’s Div. Three Repudiates Contrary Authority From Los Angeles-Based Panel
Posts
