10
the final judgment was appealable; however, the Court of Appeal
in a footnote recounted that the defendants previously purported
to appeal from the interlocutory judgment awarding possession,
but “[d]ue to the lack of an appealable final judgment [citations],
those appeals were dismissed.” (Id. at p. 1047, fn. 8.)
Eshagian’s reliance on First Western is likewise misplaced.
That case involved whether real party in interest Albert
Andrisani was a vexatious litigant with respect to his filing of
multiple lawsuits against First Western seeking damages arising
out of an earlier unlawful detainer action. (First Western, supra,
212 Cal.App.3d at pp. 862-863.) In recounting the procedural
history of the case, the Court of Appeal noted that Andrisani had
previously appealed the order in the unlawful detainer
proceeding awarding possession of the subject property to First
Western, and the court in an unpublished opinion had “treated
the purported appeal from a nonappealable interlocutory order as
a petition for writ of mandate.” (Id. at p. 863.)
In determining whether a possession-only judgment is an
appealable judgment, we follow the guiding principles set forth in
Dana Point, supra, 51 Cal.4th 1. As discussed, the relevant
inquiry is whether there is any issue left for future consideration
by the court other than compliance with the possession-only
judgment. (Id. at p. 5.) Eshagian’s complaint sought unpaid rent
and holdover damages in addition to possession of the property.
Despite entry of the possession-only judgment, the complaint has
not been dismissed, and Eshagian’s damages claims are still
pending. Further, section 1169 provides that the plaintiff in an
unlawful detainer action may seek damages after a defendant
defaults and the superior court enters a possession-only
judgment. In addition, Civil Code section 1952.3, subdivision (c),