California Legal Brief

The Rule of Viani v. Fair Oaks Estates, Inc. is that a costs judgment entered after a nonappealable voluntary dismissal without prejudice is not appealable as a final judgment when the appellant seeks to challenge underlying orders rather than the costs determination itself, under circumstances where allowing the appeal would constitute impermissible back-door review of nonappealable orders.

Appeal from judgment of costs in Superior Court, Sacramento County.

Plaintiff Appellants were Miranda Viani et al. — family members of decedent who sued assisted living facility for alleged injury causing death.

Defendant Respondent was Fair Oaks Estates, Inc. — operator of assisted living facility where alleged injury occurred.

The suit sounded in negligence, breach of contract, and wrongful death arising from alleged injury to facility resident. No cross-claims were described.

The key substantive facts leading to the suit were that plaintiffs alleged a facility employee moved decedent Debra Baker, causing an injury that led to her health deteriorating and her death eight days later.

The procedural result leading to the Appeal: The trial court granted summary adjudication on negligence and wrongful death claims but denied it on breach of contract claim; plaintiffs then voluntarily dismissed the entire action without prejudice; after failed attempts to set aside the dismissal, the trial court entered a judgment of costs awarding defendant $2,612.55, ruling that defendant was entitled to partial cost recovery.

The key question(s) on Appeal: Whether a costs judgment entered after a nonappealable voluntary dismissal without prejudice provides an appealable final judgment that allows challenge to all prior orders in the litigation.

The Appellate Court held that the costs judgment was not an appealable final judgment because it did not dispose of plaintiffs' underlying claims (which were disposed of by voluntary dismissal), and allowing review would constitute impermissible back-door review of nonappealable orders where plaintiffs sought to challenge summary adjudication and other rulings rather than the costs determination itself.

The case is inapplicable when the appellant actually challenges the costs determination itself rather than seeking to use the costs judgment as a vehicle to challenge other nonappealable orders, or when the costs order constitutes the final determination of all remaining issues in the case.

The case leaves open whether a costs judgment might be appealable as a final judgment in other circumstances where it truly represents the final determination of all remaining issues between the parties, and the precise boundaries of when such costs judgments should be treated as final judgments under the Mesa/Gassner line of cases.