Hassan v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Corp.

SHARON HASSAN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CORPORATION, et al., Defendants and Respondents.

H044053

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

December 30, 2020

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

(Santa Clara County Super. Ct. Nos. 114CV270403; 114CV270976; 114CV270978)

This case involves an alleged trip and fall. Plaintiff ShaRon Hassan filed, in propria persona, three separate lawsuits for damages based on the incident. In one action, Hassan sued the City of San Jose (City) (Hassan v. City of San Jose, Santa Clara County Superior Court, case No. 114CV270403 (case No. 114CV270403)). In a second action, Hassan sued the Santa Clara County Law Library (County Law Library) and eventually others (Hassan v. Santa Clara County Law Library et al., Santa Clara County Superior Court, case No. 114CV270976 (case No. 114CV270976)). Those additional defendants included Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (Liberty Mutual) and Golden Eagle Insurance Corporation¹ (Golden Eagle) (collectively, Insurance Defendants). In a third action, Hassan sued the County of Santa Clara (County) (Hassan v. County of Santa Clara, Santa Clara County Superior Court, case No. 114CV270978(case No. 114CV270978.) The three actions were consolidated by the trial court, and the action against the City became the lead case.

In her appellant's opening brief, Hassan purports to have appealed, in propria persona, from "judgments" sustaining demurrers without leave to amend and a multitude of other orders.² This court requested supplemental briefing on the threshold issue of appealability. We have concluded that the only appealable judgments or orders are (1) the December 4, 2015 judgment in favor of the Insurance Defendants (see § 904.1, subd. (a)(1)) and (2) the March 28, 2016 order denying Hassan's motion to reconsider the judgment in favor of the Insurance Defendants, which was predicated on various provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure³ and may be appealable, at least insofar as it was not a ruling pursuant to section 1008, subdivision (a) (1008(a)). (See §§ 904.1, subd. (a)(2); 1008, subd. (g).) As to Hassan's cognizable claims concerning matters reviewable on appeal from the December 4, 2015 judgment in favor of the Insurance Defendants—insofar as we can discern them—we conclude that they are meritless or have been forfeited.

As to the March 28, 2016 order denying Hassan's motion to reconsider the December 4, 2015 judgment, we further conclude that the court lacked jurisdiction to rule on it. In January of 2016, Hassan filed notices of appeal from the December 4, 2015 judgment. Those notices divested the trial court of jurisdiction "over any matter embraced in or affected by the appeal during the pendency of that appeal." (VarianMedical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino (2005) 35 Cal.4th 180, 196-197 (Varian).) Consequently, the court's March 28, 2016 ruling on the motion was void from the beginning. (See id. at pp. 198-199.)

We will (1) affirm the December 4, 2015 judgment in favor of the Insurance Defendants and (2) reverse the postjudgment March 28, 2016 order.

IProcedural Background

In case No. 114CV270976, Hassan sued the County Law Library for general negligence and premises liability. The County Law Library successfully demurred to the complaint, and the court gave Hassan leave to amend.

On March 4, 2015, Hassan filed an amended complaint, denominated a "Second Amended Complaint for Damages" (hereafter second amended complaint), against the County Law Library and other parties, including the Insurance Defendants. It alleged 13 "causes of action": (1) "Premise Liability"; (2) "Negligence: General; via Res lpsa Loquitur; Strict Liability; Per Se"; (3) "Contributory Negligence"; (4) "Intentional Tort"; (5) "Dangerous Conditions with Foreseeable Risks"; (6) "Negligent and Wrongful Acts of Employee(s), and/or Trustee(s) that Created and Continued the Dangerous Conditions"; (7) "Defendants had Actual and Constructive Knowledge of Dangerous Conditions with Sufficient Time to Repair"; (8) "Duty of Care/Warn: Failure to Care, to Warn, to Remedy Dangerous Conditions"; (9) "Defendants had Control, Responsibility and Power to Fix or Repair Dangerous Conditions"; (10) "Violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA)"; (11) "Personal Injury and Sufferance to Plaintiff"; (12) "Proximate Cause for Negligence"; and (13) "Compensatory, Punitive and Special Damages."

The second amended complaint alleged that Hassan's trip and fall occurred at approximately 7:10 p.m. on October 28, 2013 and was caused by the County Law Library's "dangerous property condition." That condition was described as "a neglected,dark, dangerously uneven, lifted concrete sidewalk, with large cracks and lifted concrete slabs, lifted over 3 inches high, in multiple places [that] surrounded [its] business entrance and parking lot" near First and Bassett Streets in San Jose, California. The second amended complaint also alleged in the premises liability cause of action that "[t]he defendants' property was and is controlled, owned, leased, a tenancy, and/or insured by one or more of the defendants, herein listed."

On March 27, 2015, the County Law Library demurred to the second amended complaint and concurrently moved to strike certain allegations of that complaint. The Insurance Defendants also demurred to the second amended complaint.

On April 22, 2015, the trial court consolidated, for all purposes, Hassan's three cases based on the single trip and fall incident. The court designated case No. 114CV270403 the lead case. (See Hamilton v. Asbestos Corp. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1127, 1147; see also Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350.)⁴

The demurrers and the motion to strike were heard on May 12, 2015. In an order filed May 14, 2015, the trial court sustained the demurrers of the Insurance Defendants to the second amended complaint without leave to amend.⁵

On May 26, 2015, Hassan filed a motion to set aside the trial court's May 14, 2015 order. She asked the trial court to take judicial notice of specified documents in support of the motion. The trial court heard Hassan's motion to set aside its May 14, 2015 order and took the matter under submission.

By written order filed on June 30, 2015, the court granted Hassan's request for judicial notice in part but denied her set-aside motion. The court explained that there was"no authority for a motion to set aside orders based on the [c]ourt's mistakes" and that even if the motion were regarded as a motion for reconsideration pursuant to section 1008—which Hassan had not cited—Hassan had failed "to demonstrate a satisfactory explanation for the failure to produce her purported 'new or different facts or circumstances' at an earlier time." The trial court further indicated that even if it were to reconsider its rulings, it would still make the same rulings.

A judgment in favor of the Insurance Defendants and against Hassan was filed on December 4, 2015. The judgment indicated that the court had sustained the Insurance Defendants' demurrer to a second amended complaint by order filed May 14, 2015. The judgment stated that the Insurance Defendants, "as the prevailing parties, shall recover their costs from plaintiff ShaRon Hassan as provided by law."

On December 31, 2015, Hassan filed a memorandum of points and authorities in support of a motion to reconsider the December 4, 2015 judgment in favor of the Insurance Defendants based on sections 473, subdivision (b) (473(b)), 663, 1008(a), and 1008, subdivision (b) (1008(b)).

On February 2, 2016, a hearing was held on Hassan's motion to reconsider the December 4, 2015 judgment in favor of the Insurance Defendants.

By written order filed March 28, 2016, the trial court denied Hassan's motion to reconsider the December 4, 2015 judgment. Even though the court believed that it "lack[ed] jurisdiction to rule on [Hassan's] motion to reconsider" because the judgment had been entered, it still considered the motion and denied it.

IIDiscussion

A. Principles of Appellate Review

Hassan appears to misapprehend the nature and scope of appellate review and the burdens that must be carried by an appellant.

"[I]t is a fundamental principle of appellate procedure that a trial court judgment is ordinarily presumed to be correct and the burden is on an appellant to demonstrate, on the basis of the record presented to the appellate court, that the trial court committed an error that justifies reversal of the judgment. [Citations.] 'This is not only a general principle of appellate practice but an ingredient of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error.' [Citations.] 'In the absence of a contrary showing in the record, all presumptions in favor of the trial court's action will be made by the appellate court. "[I]f any matters could have been presented to the court below which would have authorized the order complained of, it will be presumed that such matters were presented." ' [Citation.] ' "A necessary corollary to this rule is that if the record is inadequate for meaningful review, the appellant defaults and the decision of the trial court should be affirmed." ' [Citation.] 'Consequently, [the appellant] has the burden of providing an adequate record. [Citation.] Failure to provide an adequate record on an issue requires that the issue be resolved against [the appellant].' [Citation.]" (Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 608-609, fn. omitted; see Cal. Const., art. VI, § 13 ["error complained of [must have] resulted in a miscarriage of justice"]; Evid. Code, § 664 [statutory presumption that "official duty has been regularly performed"]; People v. Stowell (2003) 31...