SAMUEL CRUZ v. FRIENDLY FRANCHISEES CORP (2011)

Court of Appeal, Second District, California.

SAMUEL CRUZ et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. FRIENDLY FRANCHISEES CORP. et al., Defendants and Respondents.

B232058

Decided: May 27, 2011

Diversity Law Group, Larry W. Lee, Daniel H. Chang; Ablon, Lewis, Bass & Gale, Jerald E. Gale, Lawrence J. Poteet for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Manning & Kass, Ellrod, Ramirez, Trestor, David J. Wilson for Defendants and Respondents.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

Plaintiffs, Samuel Cruz and Socorro Vasquez, purport to appeal from an alleged judgment. We have a duty to raise issues concerning our jurisdiction on our own motion. (Jennings v. Marralle (1994) 8 Cal.4th 121, 126; Olson v. Cory (1983) 35 Cal.3d 390, 398.) We noted that since there are causes of action remaining between the parties, we may not have jurisdiction. We issued an order to show cause concerning possible dismissal of the appeal and set the matter for oral argument.

The appeal is dismissed without prejudice. All parties are to bear their own costs on appeal.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

We concur:

KUMAR, J.^*

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE. FN*. Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

KRIEGLER, J.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network