Caruso v. Snap-Tite, Inc., SNAP-TIT

Decision Date28 July 1969
Docket NumberSNAP-TIT,INC
Citation79 Cal.Rptr. 642,275 Cal.App.2d 211
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
PartiesPaul CARUSO, Plaintiff and Appellant, v.et al., Defendants and Respondents. Civ. 32966.

Paul Caruso, in pro. per. for plaintiff and appellant.

Latham & Watkins, Philip F. Belleville, and Michael J. Shockro, Los Angeles, for defendants and respondents.

JEFFERSON, Associate Justice.

Plaintiff Paul Caruso appeals from an order granting the motion of defendants Snap-Tite, Inc. and Jackson Appliance, Inc., to exclude evidence, on his alleged cause of action for legal services rendered, for failure to supply defendants with a sufficient bill of particulars (as provided under Code of Civil Procedure, section 454).

Caruso, and two other plaintiffs (not involved in this appeal), filed a complaint in this action against Snap-Tite, Inc., Jackson Appliance, Inc. and against another corporation plus two named individuals and twenty doe defendants. The complaint is in two counts. The first count was brought on behalf of all plaintiffs (including Caruso) in quantum meruit in the amount of $1,050,000, for services in clearing title to described real property. The second count, on which the bill of particulars was demanded, was brought on behalf of Caruso alone, also in quantum meruit but in the amount of $25,000, for legal services of an undescribed nature.

The only defendants served in the action were Snap-Tite and Jackson Appliance, Inc. (the others named being out of state and not amenable to service of process). Both answered denying any indebtedness under either cause of action and, as to the second cause of action, specifically denying that Caruso had performed any services for them.

Defendants made two demands for a bill of particulars seeking details of the basis for the claim under count two. Plaintiff filed responses after each demand which the court found insufficient. The court denied the motion of defendants to exclude evidence made following the filing of the first response but, on August 25, 1967, granted the motion made after plaintiff filed his second response and indicated he could not improve on it.

After the briefs of the parties were filed in this court, we requested that each party submit a supplemental memorandum on the question of the appealability of the order of August 25, 1967. In the memoranda filed, the parties all take the position that the order is appealable.

It is axiomatic that 'Since the right of appeal is wholly statutory, no judgment or order is appealable unless expressly so declared, i.e., unless it comes within one of the classes enumerated in the main statutes or is made appealable by a specific statute. (Citations.) And, since an appealable judgment or order is essential to appellate Jurisdiction, the parties cannot by any form of consent make a non-appealable order appealable. The court must of its own motion dismiss an appeal from such an order.' (3 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (1954) Appeal, § 9, p. 2150; see also City of Los Angeles v. Schweitzer, 200 Cal.App.2d 448, 452, 19 Cal.Rptr. 429; Horton v. City of Beverly Hills, 261 Cal.App.2d 306, 67 Cal.Rptr. 759; Turner v. Los Angeles Realty Board, 233 Cal.App.2d 755, 43 Cal.Rptr. 919.)

Code of Civil Procedure, section 963 sets out what orders and judgments of the superior court are appealable. The order in question is not among the listed appealable orders. Section 963 also provides, in subdivision 1, that an appeal may be taken from 'a final judgment entered in an action.' Under this subdivision a judgment or order which finally disposes of a matter in the trial court is appealable. (Turner v. Los Angeles Realty Board, Supra, 233 Cal.App.2d 755, 758, 43 Cal.Rptr. 919.)

The 'one final judgment rule,' which section 963, subdivision 1 incorporates, is a fundamental principle of appellate practice based on the theory that piecemeal disposition and multiple appeals in a single action would be oppressive and costly, and that review of intermediate rulings should properly await final disposition of a case. (3 Witkin, Cal.Procedure (1954) Appeal, § 10, p. 2151.) 'In cases involving both multiple parties and multiple issues, a disposition which determines completely all issues between two opposing parties is final within the meaning of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • Shoemaker v. Harris
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 12 Junio 2013
    ...final judgment or among the orders that the Code identifies as appealable. (Code Civ. Proc., § 904.1; see Caruso v. Snap – Tite, Inc. (1969) 275 Cal.App.2d 211, 213, 79 Cal.Rptr. 642 [no order is appealable unless it comes within class enumerated by statute].) Nor does the record reflect an......
  • People v. Belknap, Cr. 12827
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 25 Septiembre 1974
    ...of the parties take the position that the order appealed from is appealable cannot confer jurisdiction. (Caruso v. Snap-Tite, Inc. (1969) 275 Cal.App.2d 211, 213, 79 Cal.Rptr. 642. See also 6 Witkin, Op. cit., Appeal, § 31, p. There are decisions where in the absence of any objection, appel......
  • Jennings v. Marralle
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 1 Agosto 1994
    ...may not be conferred by consent of the parties (In re Estate of Hanley (1943) 23 Cal.2d 120, 142 P.2d 423; Caruso v. Snap-Tite, Inc. (1969) 275 Cal.App.2d 211, 79 Cal.Rptr. 642), the parties' understanding is relevant to a determination of the scope of arbitration and the effect of the subs......
  • Safeway Stores, Inc v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 14 Abril 1980
    ...ed. 1971) Appeal, § 36, pp. 4050-4051; and see Horton v. Jones, 26 Cal.App.3d 952, 956-957, 103 Cal.Rptr. 399; Caruso v. Snap-Tite, Inc., 275 Cal.App.2d 211, 214, 79 Cal.Rptr. 642; Maier Brewing Co. v. Pacific Nat. Fire Ins. Co., 194 Cal.App.2d 494, 497-498, 15 Cal.Rptr. 177; Efron v. Kalma......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT