Warwick Cal. Corp. v. Applied Underwriters, Inc., No A155523 (D1d4 Jan. 7, 2020)
This is a multi-party insurance coverage dispute where most of the claims are stayed on non conveniens grounds pending a litigation in Nebraska. But the Court declined to stay the case for two California-based plaintiffs. It held a bench trial on their claims, ultimately issuing a statement of decision against them. But the Court did not enter a judgment.
Plaintiffs appealed anyway. They shouldn’t have done that because a statement of decision is not an appealable order. It is true that the trial court could have entered a partial judgment, notwithstanding the stay of the other plaintiffs’ claims. See Code Civ. Proc. § 578; Cal. R. Ct 3.1591. But it didn’t, apparently because there was a possibility that the Nebraska litigation could have some potential effect on this case.
Appeal dismissed.
Thursday, January 16, 2020
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
We've Moved ....
After a two-year hiatus, 111 North Hill Street has decided to decamp for Substack. Thank you for your readership over the last twelve year...
-
Soto v. Borgwarner Morse Tec Inc. , No. B252995 (D2d4, as modified August 20, 2015) Although some law-and-economics attuned federal judges...
-
The Rossdale Grp. v. Walton , No. H043476 (D6 Apr. 15, 2017) This is a weird and kind of narrow opinion about standing that is mostly shap...
No comments:
Post a Comment