Valencia v. Allen CA2/1

Opinion

Filed 9/21/26 Valencia v. Allen CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

EM VALENCIA, B353187

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 25STCV33244) v.

ANTHONY ALLEN,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Peter A. Hernandez, Judge. Dismissed. EM Valencia, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Anthony Allen, in pro. per., for Defendant and Respondent.

_________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION1 EM Valencia seeks to appeal a trial court order sustaining a demurrer to her complaint with leave to amend. We lack jurisdiction to hear this appeal and dismiss it. The appellate record supplied by Valencia does not include her complaint or the demurrer at issue, which was filed by defendant Anthony Allen. From the register of actions, it appears that before the January 13, 2026 hearing on Allen’s demurrer, Valencia requested the court permit the filing of a proposed first amended complaint (FAC) and take the demurrer hearing off calendar. The proposed FAC is not included in the appellate record. The court denied that request on December 12, 2025, stating that it had read and considered the proposed FAC, and that the proposed FAC repeated the exact same allegations as the original complaint except for claiming $250,000 instead of $100,000 in damages. The court ordered the demurrer hearing to proceed as scheduled. Valencia filed a notice of appeal from this December 12, 2025 order (appeal No. B351875)2; that appeal was later dismissed on February 25, 2026 as being taken from a nonappealable order. At the January 13, 2026 hearing, the trial court sustained Allen’s demurrer with leave to amend and gave Valencia 20 days to file an amended complaint. Valencia filed a notice of appeal 1 See California Standards of Judicial Administration section 8.1. 2 On our own motion, we augment the record in this appeal to include the December 12, 2025 minute order, which was part of the record in appeal No. B351875. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.155(a)(1).)

2 from the demurrer ruling, which is the appeal now before us (appeal No. B353187). Valencia argues the trial court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the demurrer because her appeal of the court’s refusal to file the FAC was still pending. Putting aside that “[a]n appeal from a nonappealable order does not divest the trial court of jurisdiction” (Holloway v. Quetel (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1425, 1431, fn. 6), we lack jurisdiction to hear Valencia’s appeal. An order sustaining a demurrer with leave to amend is not an appealable order. (E.g., Wiley v. Kern High School Dist. (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 765, 772-773, fn. 6.) Because we lack jurisdiction to hear this appeal, we must dismiss it. (Olmstead v. West (1960) 177 Cal.App.2d 652, 654-655 [“it is the duty of an appellate court . . . to dismiss an appeal from a judgment which is not appealable”].) We deny Allen’s request to augment the record as moot given our lack of jurisdiction over this appeal.

3 DISPOSITION The appeal is dismissed. Allen is awarded his costs on appeal. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WEINGART, J.

We concur:

ROTHSCHILD, P. J.

M. KIM, J.