Further Judicial Action Required And No Payment Of Money Directed, So Collateral Order Doctrine Did Not Apply.
In Stahl Law Firm v. Apex Medical Technologies, Case No. D068929 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 19, 2016) (unpublished), a trial court entered an order finding ex-clients to be the prevailing party in a dispute against ex-law firm representing them (although no order had been entered fixing the amount of attorney’s fees). Law firm appealed this determination, but the 4/1 DCA decided that it was not an appealable order and dismissed the appeal as to the prevailing party ruling.
Law firm challenged the non-appealability argument on the basis that the prevailing party determination was appealable under the “collateral order” doctrine. The appellate court disagreed on two counts. First, the determination was not “final” because it required further judicial action to determine the amount of fees. Second, the interim order did not direct the payment of money such that it was not appealable. On the second ground, the 4/1 DCA panel did note there was an intermediate appellate minority view that did not require payment of money in order to invoke the collateral order doctrine, but it found this was simply wrong in light of the California Supreme Court’s directive to the contrary in Sjoberg v. Hastorf, 33 Cal.2d 116, 119 (1948).