Faerber v. Hyde
Filed 6/19/07 Faerber v. Hyde CA1/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
RAINER JOACHIM FAERBER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. THOMAS F. HYDE, et al., Defendants and Respondents. | A116199 (San Francisco City & County Super. Ct. No. 990062) |
This is the fifth appeal resulting from the litigation between Rainer Joachim Faerber and Thomas F. Hyde and The Hyde Law Firm (Hyde).[1] This protracted litigation began with a vehicle accident between Faerber and a third party. Faerber settled the lawsuit and sued his former counsel, Hyde, for legal malpractice. Hyde filed a cross-complaint against Faerber for unpaid attorney fees. The trial court granted Hydes motion for judgment on Faerbers pleadings, and we reversed in Faerber I. Once the matter returned to the lower court, Hyde moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted in 2003. We affirmed in Faerber II. The trial court conducted a bench trial on Hydes cross-complaint for attorney fees and ruled in favor of Faerber.
Subsequently, Hyde filed a memorandum of costs, and the trial court awarded Hyde costs. Faerber filed a motion to correct the error of awarding Hyde costs, since the award was contrary to the courts declaration at the end of the bench trial that Faerber was the prevailing party. The lower court vacated its order awarding costs and we reversed in Faerber III.
On August 17, 2005, Faerber, in propria persona, filed another lawsuit against Hyde and the attorneys representing Hyde in Faerbers legal malpractice lawsuit. All of Faerbers claims were based on Hydes filing a memorandum of costs in the prior lawsuit. Hyde brought a special motion to strike pursuant to Californias Anti-Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (anti-SLAPP) statute (Code Civ. Proc., 425.16). The trial court granted the motion and Faerber appealed. We affirmed the judgment in Faerber IV.
On October 26, 2006, Faerber moved in the trial court to strike the courts 2003 order granting Hydes motion for summary judgment against Faerbers legal malpractice complaint. On December 4, 2006, the trial court denied this motion because the original case had been fully adjudicated, appealed, and affirmed on appeal, and therefore the trial court had no jurisdiction over Faerbers motion to strike the summary judgment order.
Faerber filed a notice of appeal from the order denying his motion to strike its 2003 order.
We conclude that the trial court had no jurisdiction to review a judgment that had become final in 2004 after we had affirmed the grant of summary judgment in Faerber II. We, similarly, have no jurisdiction to review an appeal from a judgment that we have already reviewed and that has been final for a number of years. Accordingly, we hereby dismiss Faerbers appeal.
_________________________
Lambden, J.
We concur:
_________________________
Kline, P.J.
_________________________
Richman, J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line attorney.
[1] The prior four nonpublished decisions involving these parties are the following: Faerber v. The Hyde Law Corp. (filed Jan. 14, 2002, A090311) (Faerber I), Faerber v. The Hyde Law Corp. (filed April 4, 2004, A103678) (Faerber II), Faerber v. The Hyde Law Corp. (filed Nov. 27, 2006, A111970) (Faerber III), and Faerber v. The Hyde Law Corp. (filed Jan. 24, 2007, A113527) (Faerber IV).
