Lewis v. Carrigan
Filed 4/3/06 Lewis v. Carrigan CA1/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
| MARK LEWIS Plaintiff and Appellant, v. RYAN M. CARRIGAN, Defendant and Respondent. | A112750 (Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. SCV 234693) |
Plaintiff Mark Lewis sued defendant Ryan Carrigan, alleging that he suffered serious injuries on Carrigan's property in the course of his work building a fence there. He appeals from a trial court order denying his motion to amend his complaint to add a cause of action. Defendant Ryan Carrigan moves to dismiss Lewis's appeal as being made from a nonappealable order. We dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated below.
BACKGROUND
In April 2004, Lewis filed suit against Carrigan alleging premises liability, general negligence, breach of contract, and a common count for $850 for his work, labor and services. Lewis claims that Carrigan hired him to build a fence around the perimeter of his property in Petaluma, California for approximately two weeks. Lewis further claims that he slipped and fell, hitting his head in a bathroom area on Carrigan's property as he went to retrieve hardware for the fence, and that his fall caused a neck artery to become dysfunctional, resulting in a stroke that paralyzed his left side.
According to Lewis's opening appellate brief, after he filed and served his complaint he learned through additional research and discovery that, because the evidence indicated he would not be able to complete the construction of the fence within 52 hours, he had rights as an â€
