Trial courts get busy sometimes. They making a ruling, but might overlook ever to enter a formal order. Sometimes it is a statement of decision (which is not appealable). Sometimes it is in a minute order that directs a party to propose a formal order (also not appealable), like the nonsuit ruling in Blauser v. Dubin (4D3d Nov. 19, 2024 No. G063715). But hey, the ruling is the ruling, and everyone knows it, so what’s the big deal—just get on with the appeal, right?
Wrong. Entering an appealable order marks the end of the trial court’s jurisdiction, and triggers the time to invoke—or forever waive—appellate rights. So playing loose appealability doctrine leads to questions of jurisdiction and lost appellate rights.
Following a trend, the Blauser court frowned on the practice of overlooking technical defects in appealability, saying it allows appellate jurisdiction “to be manufactured out of spare parts.” Instead, when it comes to what is or isn’t appealable, parties “deserve clarity.”
But still, in doubtful cases, shouldn’t you just file an appeal to be safe? The court would rather you didn’t. Instead, when it comes to appealability, the court assures litigants that it will apply a bright line rule because, as the Supreme Court said in Meinhardt v. City of Sunnyvale (2024) 16 Cal.5th 643, “uncertainty leaves parties guessing.” The Blauser court published its opinion “to enhance systemic efficiency.”
Practice Tip: I have had it happen a few times where the trial court fails to issue a judgment. If this happens, file a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 664, which states that entry of judgment is a ministerial duty. (Email me for a sample motion.) If this fails, file a writ petition citing Blauser. It’s a waste of time and effort, and that’s a shame, but better than having to do the appeal all over again after the Court of Appeal directs the trial court to enter a formal order so appeal can begin all over again, as happened in Blauser.
