Courts of Appeal cannot consider a case that was dismissed at the plaintiff’s request before a judge’s final judgment, a Feb. 26 published ruling says.
The consideration came from the case of Glenn Maniago v. Desert Cardiology Consultants’ Medical Group. Maniago, a scrub technologist at the Rancho Mirage practice, sued on the claim that a doctor accidentally splashed blood from an HIV patient onto him. His complaint did not allege he contracted HIV from the blood, but it did claim damage to both him and his wife.
“We think it is clear, however, that this rule cannot apply to literally any adverse ruling a plaintiff may encounter along the path to a final judgment.”
From the ruling
Maniago sued for negligence, loss of consortium, assault, battery and unfair business practice. Desert Cardiology filed a demurrer to all the causes of action except for the loss of consortium, a legal term for harm done to a relationship.
The Maniagos did not appear for the Zoom hearing on the demurrer, which Riverside Superior Judge Harold Hopp granted with leave to amend.
The Maniagos filed a request for voluntary dismissal 15 days later. The declaration to the court said they requested a dismissal with prejudice “solely for the purpose of expediting an appeal,” the ruling said.
They then appealed the dismissal.
The ruling says that a plaintiff can sometimes file for a voluntary dismissal to speed up an appeal, but only if the court has made a final determination. In this case, the court had granted leave to amend the complaint. The Maniagos could have modified their complaint instead of appealing.
“We think it is clear, however, that this rule (you can dismiss cases to speed up an appeal) cannot apply to literally any adverse ruling a plaintiff may encounter along the path to a final judgment. Otherwise, a plaintiff who is dissatisfied with any interlocutory order could always obtain immediate appellate review just by folding up their tent, voluntarily dismissing their entire case with prejudice, and filing an appeal from the clerk’s entry of the voluntary dismissal. If that were the law, it would effectively eviscerate the one final judgment rule,” the ruling says.
The Jan. 30 ruling from the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, was published Feb. 26.
Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division One, Justice Martin Buchanan wrote the ruling, which Justices Richard Huffman and Julia Kelety joined.
John Mitchell of John Arai Mitchell and J. David Black of his own law offices represented the Maniagos.
Kenneth Pedroza and Amy Rankin of Cole Pedroza, and Deborah deBoer and Erik Laakkonen of Kramer deBoer & Keane, represent Desert Cardiology Consultants’ Medical Group.
Case No. CVRI2303683
Appellate Case No. D085025
Read the ruling here.
