Aug. 2, 2023
Take my appeal, please!
The pragmatic legal standard espoused in cases like Muller flows from the idea that appellate courts should review and settle controversies that are ripe for decision but do not impact the underlying merits of the action. By contrast, the legal standard in Longobardo reduces the range of discretion by imposing the requirement that the order must direct the payment of money of the performance of an act - a significant restriction on appealability.
James C. Martin
Partner
Reed Smith LLP
Phone: (213) 457-8002
Email: jcmartin@reedsmith.com
James is in the firm's Appellate Group, resident in the Los Angeles and Pittsburgh offices. He is certified as specialists in appellate law by the California State Bar Board of Legal Specialization.
David J. de Jesus
Counsel
Reed Smith LLP
101 2nd St Ste 1800
San Francisco , CA 94105
Phone: (415) 543-8700
Fax: (415) 391-8269
Email: ddejesus@reedsmith.com
Loyola Law School; Los Angeles CA
David is in the firm's Appellate Group, resident in San Francisco office. He is certified as specialists in appellate law by the California State Bar Board of Legal Specialization.
A recent California Court of Appeals decision, Longobardo v. Avco, No. G062374 (Cal. Ct. App. July 11, 2023), has highlighted an entrenched conflict in the requirements that must be met for an appealable collateral order. The conflict is engendered in part by the Supreme Court's diverse holdings on what collateral orders are appealable. The resolution of the conflict therefore must rest with our highest court and, given the consequences attached to the outcome, litigants and courts wil...
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In