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.
Showing posts with label 578. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 578. Show all posts
Thursday, January 16, 2020
Subscribe to:
Posts (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...