California Court of Appeal

In this case, plaintiff sued defendants for allegedly stealing antiques he owned, and after the first phase of trial, the court found both defendants jointly and severally liable for conversion. On May 20, 2013, months before the punitive damages phase began, a document entitled “judgment” was filed setting forth compensatory damages plus interest and costs against defendants, and went on to state that the court finds “by a preponderance of the evidence that both defendants have acted with malice and oppression towards plaintiff, warranting an award of punitive damages to be assessed at a separate trial.” Defendants appeal from the May 20, 2013 judgment. The appeal is dismissed, where: 1) the May 20, 2013 judgment was interlocutory, not final, as it left open the determination of the amount of punitive damages as an issue for future consideration; 2) determining the amount of punitive damages at a court trial is a type of judicial action on the part of the court that is essential to a final of the rights of the parties; and 3) because the May 20, 2013 judgment is interlocutory and not final, it is therefore not appealable.

Appellate Information

• Decided 03/17/2015
• Published 03/17/2015

Judges

• Poochigian

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel