Seabloom v. Wendel CA2/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from an order
- Trial court
- Superior Court of Los Angeles County · No. KC063482
- Trial judge
- Dan Thomas Oki
- Outcome
- dismissed — Appeal dismissed.
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Frances Rothschild (author), Johnson
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Filed 9/29/14 Seabloom v. Wendel CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
CYNTHIA SEABLOM, B248665
Cross-complainant and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. KC063482) v.
CHRISTINE WENDEL,
Cross-defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Dan Thomas Oki, Judge. Appeal dismissed. ______ Christine Wendel, in pro. per., for Cross-defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Cross-complainant and Respondent. ______ Christine Wendel appealed from the May 7, 2013 order appointing a receiver in a cross-action brought against her by Cynthia Seablom and an underlying action between CPS Signage & Marketing Corporation, a company affiliated with Wendel, and Seablom. Wendel contends that the May 7, 2013 order is void because the trial court did not direct the posting of a bond along with the receiver appointment. The court, however, entered a subsequent order on May 20, 2013, in which it did direct the posting of a bond as a condition of the receiver appointment. Wendel maintains that the court lacked jurisdiction to enter the May 20, 2013 order because she already had filed a notice of appeal from the May 7, 2013 order. But Wendel did not appeal from the May 20, 2013 order and accordingly has no basis to challenge it. The May 20, 2013 order thus is intact and directs the posting of a bond, which is Wendel’s only complaint about the May 7, 2013 order. As a result, Wendel’s appeal from the May 7, 2013 order based on the failure to direct the posting of a bond is moot. DISPOSITION The appeal is dismissed. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
ROTHSCHILD, P. J. We concur:
JOHNSON, J.
MILLER, J.* * Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, Assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.