Pearson v. Brace
Filed 9/5/06 Pearson v. Brace CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
----
| VERONICA R. PEARSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DANNY D. BRACE, JR., et al., Defendants and Respondents. | C049924
(Super. Ct. No. 02AS07339)
|
Plaintiff Veronica R. Pearson appeals pro se from the dismissal of her action following the grant of summary judgment to defendants Danny D. Brace, Jr., and The Law Firm of Brace & Crowdis. That summary judgment defeated plaintiff's claims of legal malpractice arising from defendants' representation of plaintiff in a personal injury action following her involvement in a multi-car traffic accident.
Plaintiff's notice of appeal states that she appeals from the judgment after an order granting a summary judgment motion, but the record contains only the order granting the motion of defendants Danny Brace, Jr., and the Law Firm of Brace & Crowdis. As numerous published appellate opinions have pointed out, an order granting summary judgment is not an appealable order. (E.g., Garcia v. Hejmadi (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 674, 680; Stolz v. Wong Communications Limited Partnership (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1811, 1816; Islander Yachts, Inc. v. One Freeport 36-Foot Vessel (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 1081, 1086.) The appeal must be taken, instead, from a judgment entered on the basis of the summary judgment order. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 904.1, subd. (a)(1); see also 9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Appeal, § 103, pp. 166-167; id., § 119, p. 183.) In the present case, despite the trial court's direction in the summary judgment order that â€
