Filed 6/29/17 Allah v. MV Public Transporation CA4/3



NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE


NABIL ABD ALLAH,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

MV PUBILC TRANSPORTATION, INC. et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.


G054908

(Super. Ct. No. 30-2015-00789909)

O P I N I O N

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, John C. Gastelum, Judge. Motion to dismiss appeal granted.
Nabil Abd Allah in pro. per. for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Littler Mendelson, Douglas A. Wickham and Everett C. Martin for Defendants and Respondents.
* * *



THE COURT:*
Appellant Nabil Abd Allah purports to appeal from what his notice of appeal and civil case information statement identify as a “judgment” entered after an order granting a summary judgment motion entered on April 3, 2017. The April 3, 2017, order is a minute order granting respondents MV Public Transportation, Inc., and MV Transportation, Inc.’s motion for summary adjudication on some but not all the complaint’s causes of action and on appellant’s request for punitive damages. No final judgment has been entered.
After we invited appellant to file an informal letter brief explaining why the appeal should not be dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction, respondents filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. Appellant’s opposition, unsupported by any legal analysis, urges that because the order granting summary adjudication is “final” as to four causes of action and only one cause of action remains for trial, we should consider the appeal.
“The existence of an appealable order or judgment is a jurisdictional prerequisite to an appeal. [Citation.] Accordingly, if the order or judgment is not appealable, the appeal must be dismissed. [Citation.]” (Canandaigua Wine Co., Inc. v. County of Madera (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 298, 302.)
An order granting summary adjudication disposing of some but not all causes of action is not an appealable order. (Katzenstein v. Chabad of Poway (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 759, 769; Jacobs–Zorne v. Superior Court (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1064, 1070 (Jacobs–Zorne).) Such an order is reviewable on an appeal from a final judgment (Code Civ. Proc., § 906; Jacobs–Zorne, supra, 46 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1070-1071), or by a timely filed petition for writ of mandate (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (m)(1)).

Because a final judgment has not been entered, and an order granting summary adjudication is not appealable, the purported appeal is dismissed.
DISPOSITION
The motion to dismiss the appeal is granted. The appeal is dismissed. Respondents are awarded their costs on appeal.