Automated Summary
Key Facts
Mylene Lopez-Farooq and Ibrahim Farooq appealed from an order denying their motion to vacate the expungement of a lis pendens they recorded on real property in Santa Clarita. The appellants filed a complaint alleging fraudulent transactions and wrongful foreclosure, and recorded a lis pendens in June 2018. Breckenridge Property Fund 2016, LLC purchased the property at a trustee's sale in May 2022 and moved to expunge the lis pendens. The trial court granted the expungement in April 2023 and denied the appellants' motion to vacate that expungement on August 24, 2023. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that because the expungement order itself is not appealable under California law, an order denying a motion to vacate that nonappealable order is likewise not appealable.
Issues
The court must determine whether appellants can appeal from the August 24, 2023 order denying their motion to vacate the expungement of a lis pendens. The court concludes that because the expungement order itself is not appealable under Code of Civil Procedure section 405.39, the order denying the motion to vacate is likewise not appealable. The court applies the rule that parties cannot indirectly appeal nonappealable orders by moving to vacate them.
Holdings
The court held that an order denying a motion to vacate an expungement of a lis pendens is not appealable because the underlying expungement order itself is not appealable under Code of Civil Procedure section 405.39. The court rejected appellants' argument that Code of Civil Procedure section 473(d) provided a basis for appeal, finding the motion did not meet requirements for relief under that provision. Since appellants sought to appeal from a nonappealable order through a motion to vacate, the appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The appeal is dismissed and respondent recovers costs on appeal.
Remedies
The court dismissed the appeal and ordered the respondent to recover its costs on appeal.
Legal Principles
An appeal from a denial of a motion to vacate a nonappealable order is not itself appealable. Appellate courts have jurisdiction only over appealable orders. Code of Civil Procedure section 405.39 provides that expungement of a lis pendens is not appealable; the only review mechanism is by writ of mandate. When an order is not appealable, it cannot be made reviewable by moving to set it aside and appealing from the denial of that motion. The Jackson exception applies only where the law makes express provision for a motion to vacate a specific nonappealable judgment or order, which section 663 and section 473(d) do not provide for expungement orders.
Precedent Name
- Jackson v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Inc.
- Woodridge Escondido Property Owners Assn. v. Nielsen
- Griset v. Fair Political Practices Com.
- Spellens v. Spellens
- Rooney v. Vermont Investment Corp.
Cited Statute
California Code of Civil Procedure
Judge Name
- Bendix, J.
- Rothschild, P. J.
- M. Kim, J.
Passage Text
- No order or other action of the court under this chapter [pertaining to expungement relief] shall be appealable. Any party aggrieved by an order made on a motion under this chapter may petition the proper reviewing court to review the order by writ of mandate.
- The appeal is dismissed. Respondent is to recover its costs on appeal.
- Appellants moved to vacate a nonappealable order. Denial of a motion to vacate a nonappealable order is not itself appealable. Because appellants take their appeal only from such an order, the appeal must be dismissed.