gno.law

Marriage of Hite CA2/6

California Court of Appeal · B334672 · 2025-12-03 · Unpublished

Area
family
Panel
Hernaldo J. Baltodano (author)

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion

Filed 12/3/25 Marriage of Hite CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

In re Marriage of SEAN HITE 2d Civ. No. B334672 and KAITLIN HITE. (Super. Ct. No. 22FL01889) (Santa Barbara County)

SEAN HITE,

Appellant, v.

KAITLIN HITE,

Respondent.

Sean Hite (Husband) appeals from an interlocutory discovery order in a marital dissolution case. We dismiss his appeal because the order is not appealable. Husband challenges the trial court’s ruling on Kaitlin Hite (Wife)’s motion to compel further discovery responses. The trial court ordered Husband to provide further responses and pay $5,000 in sanctions; the sanctions order was stayed until after judgment. A discovery motion order is not appealable. (Doe v. United States Swimming, Inc. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1424, 1432.) “Instead, the challenge to a discovery order must await appeal from a final judgment.” (Aixtron, Inc. v. Veeco Instruments Inc. (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 360, 387.) Orders imposing monetary sanctions of $5,000 or less may be appealed after entry of final judgment or upon petition for an extraordinary writ. (Code Civ. Proc., § 904.1, subd. (b).) Here, Husband is not appealing a final judgment, and he did not seek an extraordinary writ1. Because we lack appellate jurisdiction over Husband’s appeal of the discovery sanction, we dismiss his appeal. (Collins v. Corse (1936) 8 Cal.2d 123, 124.) DISPOSITION The appeal is dismissed. Wife shall recover her costs on appeal. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

BALTODANO, J.

We concur:

YEGAN, Acting P. J. CODY, J.

1 In a separate appeal, Husband is contesting custody and visitation orders. The appeals were not consolidated.

2 James F. Rigali, Judge Superior Court County of Santa Barbara ______________________________ Sean Hite, in pro. per., for Appellant. Charles M. Oxton; Ferguson Case Orr Paterson and Wendy C. Lascher for Respondent.

Cites, in this corpus