Centinela Freeman Emergency etc. v. Maxwell-Jo
Plaintiffs appeal from an order denying their motion for an award of prejudgment attorney fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5. The trial court concluded the motion was untimely under rule 3.1702(b)(1) of the California Rules of Court because Plaintiffs filed the motion more than 180 days after the purported entry of judgment. Citing a series of interlocutory orders and a voluntary dismissal disposing of different causes of action, the court reasoned that entry of the final judgment occurred on the date the superior court clerk entered Plaintiffs’ dismissal of their last remaining claim. However, these discrete interlocutory orders were never reduced to a single judgment, and the record reveals significant confusion and uncertainty in the lower court about whether or when the final judgment was entered. Because the date of entry of judgment determines not just the deadline for filing an attorney fee motion, but also sets the jurisdictional deadline for filing a noti
Comments on Centinela Freeman Emergency etc. v. Maxwell-Jo