Eshagian v. Cepeda (2025)

Citation: Eshagian v. Cepeda (2025)
Parent Document: Eshagian v. Cepeda (2025)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2025-06-26
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10617811/eshagian-v-cepeda/ ↗

Full Text

1,101 chars

24
purported appeal from order for sale of property in pending
partition action as petition for writ of mandate because there was
“uncertainty about [the] order’s appealability” and the issue to be
decided was a “pure question of law”].)
       The Supreme Court’s decision in Morehart v. County of
Santa Barbara (1994) 7 Cal.4th 725, 732, 746 is instructive.
There, the court held the judgment considered by the Court of
Appeal was not an appealable order because it did not resolve all
of the plaintiff’s causes of action, but the Supreme Court treated
the appeal as a petition for writ of mandate (and reversed the
Court of Appeal’s decision), explaining, “Judicial economy would
not be served in this case by deferring resolution of the issues
decided by the Court of Appeal until final judgment on all of
plaintiffs’ causes of action. The merits of those issues not only
have been briefed by the parties and decided by the Court of
Appeal, but also have been thoughtfully addressed by a diverse
group of amici curiae.”
       We therefore treat Cepeda’s appeal as a petition for writ of
mandate.

Other Sections in This Document (49)

Full Text