Quest Intern., Inc. v. Icode Corp.
| Decision Date | 22 September 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. G032276.,G032276. |
| Citation | 122 Cal.App.4th 745,19 Cal.Rptr.3d 173 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | QUEST INTERNATIONAL, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. ICODE CORP., Defendant and Respondent. |
Ghods Law Firm and Mohammed K. Ghods, Santa Ana, for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Piper Rudnick, Antony E. Buchignani, Los Angeles; Gray Cary Ware & Freidenrich, David F. Gross and Stanley J. Panikowski, San Diego, for Defendant and Respondent.
We publish this dismissal of a purported appeal in order to alert the bench and bar to a particularly well-camouflaged trap for the unwary. The trap has been set by the statute which acts as the gatekeeper to the appellate courts in California, section 904.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, subdivision (a)(3) of section 904.1. That statute governs orders granting motions to dismiss for inconvenient forum.1
Here's the trap: Most of the time, unsigned minute orders granting a dismissal motion (as happens, for example, when the trial court grants a motion for summary judgment) are not appealable. So adversely affected counsel do not have to worry about the time running on their right to appeal. They can confidently sit back until a formal signed order or judgment of dismissal is filed.
Subdivision (a)(3) of section 904.1, however, creates a counterintuitive exception, because it makes even unsigned minute orders granting motions to dismiss for inconvenient forum directly appealable. Further, such an order — unlike some other appealable orders under section 904.1 — constitutes a "final judgment" as the term is defined in section 577. But, and here's the real trap — as a final judgment it cannot be attacked by a motion for reconsideration. In fact, the trial court does not even possess the authority to undo or amend it, on its own motion or prompted by a litigant.
These principles will force us, reluctantly, to dismiss this appeal in this most convoluted of cases. Here's a quick synopsis of the facts, which arise out of the complication that in this case there were no less than two "reconsiderations" of a defendant's initial motion to dismiss for inconvenient forum:
First came the defendant's motion to dismiss the case based on a forum selection clause requiring any litigation between the parties be conducted in Virginia. The trial court denied that motion. But then, a few weeks later, the trial court — out of the blue — reconsidered the matter, changed its mind, and entered an unsigned minute order granting the motion to dismiss.
The disappointed plaintiff soon filed a motion for reconsideration. Then, instead of simply denying the motion, the trial court formally granted the motion to reconsider — that is, it agreed simply to reconsider the matter, not necessarily change its mind. But, after "reconsidering," the trial court re-affirmed its (reconsidered!) decision to grant the motion to dismiss. However, this time it entered not a simple order granting the motion to dismiss, but an order directly "dismissing" case, an order which also specifically required preparation of a formal order of dismissal by defense counsel.
Defense counsel ignored the directive to prepare a formal order, so, eventually (seven and one-half-months later) plaintiff's counsel prepared one himself and submitted it to the court, which the trial judge signed. The notice of appeal in this case was taken some 59 days after that particular formal signed notice of appeal, i.e., more than nine months after the initial minute order granting the motion to dismiss for inconvenient forum.2
We say "reluctantly" dismiss, because, as anyone who reads this opinion through to the end is about to learn, California's law of appellate jurisdiction is full of fiendishly fine distinctions worthy of the most legalistic of medieval clergy. We have turned this case around like a prism hoping to find the light that might save this appeal. Alas, we have not found it despite any number of quick flashes. On analysis they all turned out to be evanescent.
We are in good company to express such misgivings about the traps and complexity of California's procedure. In a case structurally very much like this one, Justice Tobriner once condemned as "legal pedantry" the dismissal of an appeal where (1) a court clerk told the appellant's counsel on the phone that an order denying his new trial motion had been denied on February 6, (2) the poor attorney had, accordingly, calendared the deadline for filing of the notice of appeal for thirty days from February 6, only (3) to discover to his chagrin that there had been a minute order entered on February 4 denying his motion, and (4) the majority of the Supreme Court would later conclude that it was the minute order of February 4 — not the formal order of February 6 — which began the running of the time for appeal. The upshot was that he had filed the actual notice of appeal one day too late. (See Hollister Convalescent Hosp. Inc. v. Rico (1975) 15 Cal.3d 660, 677, 125 Cal.Rptr. 757, 542 P.2d 1349 (dis. opn. of Tobriner, J.).)
Of course, from our point of view as an intermediate appellate court, the most salient lesson to be learned from Hollister Convalescent is that the majority of the Supreme Court was quite serious about upholding the prickly rules of appellate procedure, despite Justice Tobriner's eloquent dissent. While this area of the law may indeed, as Justice Tobriner said, entail much in the way of legal pedantry, it is, to paraphrase Churchill, legal pedantry up with which we must put.
As the poor attorney in Hollister Convalescent discovered, the fact that some minute orders are appealable when most are not has real world consequences. Counsel for the plaintiff tripped up in exactly the same way here.3
The plaintiff, Quest, is a California firm in the business of selling and repairing computer monitors for the health care industry. Quest hired Cybercore to provide certain accounting software for Quest, and Cybercore was taken over by Icode, a Virginia software firm, who allegedly assumed all obligations of Cybercore. Cybercore, however, allegedly failed to provide satisfactory accounting software for Quest, so Quest sued Icode and Cybercore. This appeal concerns only Quest's claims against Icode.
Icode made a motion to dismiss the case on the theory that the licensing agreement by which Quest uses Icode software requires that the "exclusive venue for any litigation" between the parties would be in Virginia.
The motion to dismiss was heard June 27, 2002. The judge denied the motion under the rationale that the licensing agreement was not controlling.
The hearing generated an unsigned minute order stating that the "motion to dismiss is denied without prejudice for counsel to state new facts pursuant to 1008 within 45 days." Quest also filed a notice of ruling the next day. There never was, however, a formal order embodying the June 27 denial of the motion.
But two-and-one half weeks later on July 15, 2002, the judge, on his own, reversed. A minute order was filed, specifically stating that "Defendant Icode's motion to dismiss for improper venue is granted."
Plaintiff Quest filed a motion for reconsideration two weeks later, on July 30, 2002. Ironically, Quest did not present any "new or different facts, circumstances, or law" that had developed in the interim. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1008, subd. (a).) Rather. Quest argued that the trial judge himself had acted outside of his jurisdiction in, sua sponte, reconsidering his prior decision without new circumstances, facts or law in (purported) violation of section 1008. (See Kerns v. CSE Ins. Group (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 368, 383-386, 130 Cal.Rptr.2d 754 for a discussion of the line of cases supporting the view that compliance with section 1008 is the exclusive basis for the reconsideration of an interim order.)
The motion for reconsideration was heard August 29, 2002. The court opened the hearing by granting the motion for reconsideration, and then entertained oral argument, most of which centered on the issue of whether Quest had ever really agreed to the licensing contract that provided for Virginia venue. At the end, after complimenting both counsel for their "excellent oral presentation" the court concluded that the case should still be dismissed because Quest had agreed to the forum selection provision in the licensing agreement. At the end of the hearing, perhaps adumbrating difficulties yet to come, counsel for Quest remarked that the route to the Court of Appeal looked "a little murky." (As the reader will gather from the pages of analysis ahead, counsel was spot on accurate.)
The unsigned minute order from the hearing generated by the clerk on August 29, 2002, provided that the motion to reconsider was granted, but the case was still "ordered dismissed." The order also provided that counsel for the prevailing party, i.e., Icode, was to prepare a formal order and "dispositive judgment of dismissal."4
And there the matter sat. And presumably would have kept on sitting unless counsel for Quest would have done something about it. Counsel for Icode, the "prevailing party" who was supposed to prepare a formal order and judgment, did no such thing — they were apparently quite content to ignore the trial judge's directive and let the case languish in the limbo between the trial and appellate court.
Eventually, though, counsel for Quest caught on to the tactic. And so, on or just before March 14, 2003 — more than six months after the August 29, 2002 hearing and minute order — counsel for Quest, the non-prevailing party, submitted a formal order of dismissal, which was signed that day by the trial judge. On May 13, 2003 — just short of sixty days after the filing of the formal order of dismissal — Quest filed this appeal from that particular order. This court on its own...
To continue reading
Request your trial