Ironridge Global IV, Ltd. v. Scripsamerica, Inc., No B256198 (D2d8 Jun. 30, 2015)
Under the terms of a settlement, entered on the record as a judgment under Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6, Defendant had to pay Plaintiff by issuing stock and delivering it to Plaintiff. If the price went down, Defendant was required to pony up more stock. The price did, in fact, go down. When Defendant refused to turn over the stock, Plaintiff successfully sought to enforce the judgment in court. The court ordered Defendant (1) not to give away any of its stock to any other party; and (2) to give Plaintiff the stock it was entitled to.
Defendant appealed. Under established appellate procedure, that stayed order (2), because the turnover obligation is mandatory, but not order (1) which is just a prohibitory injunction. See Kettenhofen v. Superior Court, 55 Cal. 2d 189, 191 (1961) (“An appeal stays a mandatory but not a prohibitory injunction.”). But while the appeal was pending, Defendant violated order (1) by issuing 8.7 million shares of its stock to third parties. Bad idea. Under the disentitlement doctrine, when there’s no stay, an appellate court has the discretion to dismiss an appeal when the appellant violates the underlying trial court order being appealed. The court does so here.
Appeal dismissed.
Showing posts with label disentitlement. Show all posts
Showing posts with label disentitlement. Show all posts
Monday, July 27, 2015
Tuesday, March 3, 2015
Right to Appeal Lost for Fast and Loose Debtor
Blumberg v. Minthorne, No. G050428 (D4d3 Feb. 4, 2015)
Defendant in a probate court action disobeyed the trial court’s order to provide an accounting and to convey some property to plaintiff by quitclaim. She generally obstructed the trial court’s efforts to enforce its own orders. Under the circumstances, her appeal is subject to the disentitlement doctrine—an inherent authority of appellate courts to dismiss an appeal when a litigant has disobeyed the orders of lower courts.
Appeal dismissed.
Defendant in a probate court action disobeyed the trial court’s order to provide an accounting and to convey some property to plaintiff by quitclaim. She generally obstructed the trial court’s efforts to enforce its own orders. Under the circumstances, her appeal is subject to the disentitlement doctrine—an inherent authority of appellate courts to dismiss an appeal when a litigant has disobeyed the orders of lower courts.
Appeal dismissed.
Thursday, December 11, 2014
No Appeal for You!
Gwartz v. Weilert, No. F066581 (D5 Nov. 18, 2014)
After plaintiff obtained a money judgment on a real estate fraud claim, the trial court entered various post-trial orders preventing defendants from dissipating or concealing their assets. Defendants proceeded to violate these orders forty-seven different times by engaging in various transfers of assets and money to related entities. In a rare application of the disentitlement doctrine, the court of appeal dismisses defendants’ merits appeal of the fraud judgment due to defendants’ willful disobedience of of the trial court’s orders.
After plaintiff obtained a money judgment on a real estate fraud claim, the trial court entered various post-trial orders preventing defendants from dissipating or concealing their assets. Defendants proceeded to violate these orders forty-seven different times by engaging in various transfers of assets and money to related entities. In a rare application of the disentitlement doctrine, the court of appeal dismisses defendants’ merits appeal of the fraud judgment due to defendants’ willful disobedience of of the trial court’s orders.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)