Filed 8/17/17 Cinderella of Boston v. Petite Pumps and Heels CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Frederick P. Aguirre, Judge. Dismissed.

Crest Law Firm and Majid Foroozandeh for Defendants and Appellants.

Lerner & Weiss, Leonard D. Lerner and Michael I. Weiss for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION

The trial court found appellants Petite Pumps and Heels, LLC (Petite Pumps) and Dennis and Laurie McCabe in contempt for violating a judgment in favor of respondent Cinderella of Boston (Cinderella), which judgment included an injunction prohibiting appellants from soliciting Cinderella’s customers. The court fined appellants a total of $6,000 for 12 acts of contempt.

A judgment of contempt is not an appealable order; it can be reviewed only by a petition for a writ or, if the contemnor is in jail, by a petition for habeas corpus. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

FACTS

Both Cinderella and Petite Pumps sell shoes directly to women with exceptionally small feet. In February 2015, Cinderella sued Petite Pumps and its principals, Dennis and Laurie McCabe (former Cinderella employees), for misappropriating Cinderella’s trade secrets – in particular its customer list.

In April 2015, the parties entered into a judgment, consent decree and permanent injunction prohibiting the McCabes and Petite Pumps from using Cinderella’s trade secrets or soliciting its customers.

In August 2015, Cinderella applied ex parte for an order to show cause (OSC) re contempt because Petite Pumps was soliciting Cinderella’s customers. The trial court granted the application and set a hearing on the OSC. The court also ordered Cinderella’s motion for sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5 heard at the same time.

The court heard the matter on November 17, 2015. It granted the OSC re contempt, finding that the defendants had intentionally violated the judgment and the injunction by soliciting Cinderella’s existing customers, and fined appellants $500 for each violation presented to the court, for a total of $6,000. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1218, subd. (a).) It also ordered payment of Cinderella’s attorney fees, but significantly reduced the amount awarded. The motion for sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5 was denied.

The record on appeal consists of an appellant’s appendix and a respondent’s appendix. Neither appendix includes the notice of appeal, the designation of the record, or the register of actions. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.124(b).) The record does not include a reporter’s transcript or an opposition to the OSC re contempt by Petite Pumps or the McCabes.[1]

DISCUSSION

Petite Pumps and the McCabes are seeking review of the contempt judgment on several grounds, but a judgment of contempt is not an appealable order. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 904.1, subd. (a)(1)(B).) It must be reviewed by a petition for a writ. (People ex rel. DuFauchard v. U.S. Financial Management, Inc. (2009) 169 Cal.App.4th 1502, 1510-1511; Hanson v. Superior Court (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 75, 80, fn. 1; Lister v. Superior Court (1979) 98 Cal.App.3d 64, 69.)

We are required to raise the issue of whether an order is appealable ourselves. (Jennings v. Marralle (1994) 8 Cal.4th 121, 126-127.) We cannot ignore it. If the order is not appealable, we must dismiss the appeal on our own motion. (See MinCal Consumer Law Group v. Carlsbad Police Dept. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 259, 265-266; Art Movers, Inc. v. Ni West, Inc. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 640, 645.)

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed. Respondent is to recover its costs.

BEDSWORTH, J.

WE CONCUR:

O’LEARY, P. J.

FYBEL, J.