Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 4, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Piltan v. Novell CA2/8

California Court of Appeal

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: B327357M

• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Opinion

• Authorities (10)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (1.2K)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

Filed 3/4/26 Piltan v. Novell CA2/8
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions
not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion
has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION EIGHT

BABAK PILTAN, B327357

Plaintiff, Cross-defendant, and Los Angeles County
Respondent, Super. Ct. No. 19STCV14650
v.
ORDER MODIFYING OPINION
MARIO NOVELL,
[NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT]
Defendant, Cross-complainant,
and Appellant.

THE COURT:
It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on March 2, 2026,
be modified as follows:
The counsel listed for Defendant, Cross-complainant, and
Appellant is deleted and replaced with the following: “Carter
Law Firm and Corey Alan Carter for Defendant, Cross-
complainant, and Appellant.”
There is no change in the judgment.

---

STRATTON, P. J. VIRAMONTES, J. SCHERB, J.
Filed 3/2/26 Piltan v. Novell CA2/8 (unmodified opinion)
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions
not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion
has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

BABAK PILTAN, B327357

Plaintiff, Cross-defendant, and Los Angeles County
Respondent, Super. Ct. No. 19STCV14650
v.

MARIO NOVELL,

Defendant, Cross-complainant,
and Appellant.

APPEAL from a post-judgment order of the Superior Court
of Los Angeles County, Steven J. Kleifield, Judge. Appeal
dismissed.

Carter Law Firm and Corey Alan Carter Law Offices of
William B. Hanley and William B. Hanley for Defendant, Cross-
complainant, and Appellant

Joseph A. Hearst for Plaintiff, Cross-defendant, and
Respondent.

---

On February 21, 2023, appellant Mario Novell filed a
notice of appeal from the trial court’s order denying his
motion for attorney fees. Novell indicated on the notice of
appeal that the appeal is from an “order after judgment
under Code of Civil Procedure, § 904.1(a)(2)”—i.e., an order
made after an appealable judgment.
In Novell’s civil case information sheet filed March 27,
2023, once more Novell asserted the appeal is from “an order
after judgment under Code Civ. Proc., § 904.1(a)(2).”
However, he left blank item 1(b) on the form, which asks:
“Does the judgment appealed from dispose of all causes of
action, including all cross-actions between the parties?”
The record reflects that Novell filed a first amended
cross-complaint in the action on March 25, 2022, the
adjudication of which is not reflected in the final judgment
after jury trial. Indeed, in support of his arguments in the
opening and reply briefs, Novell acknowledges and repeats
that he “brought and never dismissed [his] cross-complaint.”
This raises the issue of whether the appeal is premature
given Novell’s pending first amended cross-complaint.
“Where a complaint and cross-complaint involving the same
parties have been filed, there is no final, appealable
judgment until both have been resolved.” (ECC
Construction, Inc. v. Oak Park Calabasas Homeowners Assn.
(2004) 122Cal.App.4th 994, 1002 (ECC).) “A complaint and
cross-complaint are treated as independent actions for most
purposes, except with respect to the requirement of one final
judgment.” (Westamerica Bank v. MBG Industries, Inc.

2
(2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 109, 132; see Rethers v. Rethers
(1956) 140 Cal.App.2d 28, 30.) “Judgment rendered on a
complaint alone, unaccompanied by judgment on a pending
cross-complaint, is not a final judgment, and appeal from it
may be dismissed on motion.” (Tsarnas v. Bailey (1960) 179
Cal.App.2d 332, 337; Holt v. Booth (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th
1074, 1081; Swain v. California Casualty Ins. Co. (2002) 99
Cal.App.4th 1, 6.) Thus, a judgment which resolves a
complaint but does not resolve a cross-complaint pending
between the same parties, is not final and not appealable,
even if the complaint has been fully adjudicated.
(Westamerica Bank, at p. 132; Angell v. Superior Court
(1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 691, 698 (Angell); Southern Pacific
Land Co. v. Westlake Farms, Inc. (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 807,
825–826.)
In more detail, our review of the record establishes the
following:
On February 8, 2021, plaintiff and respondent Babak
Piltan filed his second amended complaint. On March 25,
2022, Novell filed a first amended cross-complaint alleging
three causes of action, including one for breach of the
parties’ settlement agreement and general release executed
in a prior case. Ten days later, on April 4, 2022, trial by jury
began. The jury was asked to complete a special verdict
form jointly created and submitted by the parties. The jury
found that Piltan “agree[d] to waive the protection of Civil
Code section 1542 when he settled the prior case and
accepted $80,000.” The waiver issue was one of Novell’s

3
affirmative defenses and the basis of Novell’s cause of action
in the first amended cross-complaint for breach of the
settlement agreement. The special verdict form did not
further address the causes of action in Novell’s first
amended cross-complaint; it only addressed the causes of
action in Piltan’s second amended complaint.
Neither did the May 27, 2022 judgment address the
causes of action of Novell’s first amended cross-complaint. It
only provides, “[Piltan] take nothing in this action and that
[Novell] recover from [Piltan] its costs of suit.” The case
register included in the record on appeal does not indicate
that Novell’s first amended cross-complaint was adjudicated
or dismissed. The record includes no information as to the
status of the first amended cross-complaint.
On February 11, 2026, we sent the parties a letter
asking about the status of Novell’s first amended cross-
complaint. Novell’s responsive letter, filed February 13,
2026, states that the cause of action for breach of the
settlement agreement was “never dismissed” but the other
two causes of action for breach of implied covenant and
unjust enrichment “were dismissed at some point during
trial, the exact time of which is uncertain.” Novell contends
in his responsive letter that “the main thing sought in the
cross-complaint at trial was the same relief in the
affirmative defense” and that they were “subsumed . . . into
one due to their identical nature.”

4
Piltan’s responsive letter states a minute order dated
April 14, 2022 (a minute order not part of the record
provided to us on appeal) shows Novell dismissed the first
amended cross-complaint’s cause of action for breach of the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and the
“record contains no indication that counsel for [Novell] ever
requested that the trial judge take any action with respect to
the cross-complaint.”
The record on appeal does not support Novell’s claim
that the first amended cross-complaint’s cause of action for
breach of settlement agreement was argued and subsumed
as part of the affirmative defense via the special verdict
form’s first question. A review of the reporter’s transcript of
the trial proceedings may have been helpful in that regard;
however, we were given only a reporter’s transcript for April
15, 2022 which includes the jury instructions and the
parties’ closing arguments. Novell’s failure to procure an
adequate appellate record that includes relevant documents
from the court below, including minute orders from the trial
dates and a reporter’s transcript of the trial proceedings,
precludes our review of any claim of error by the trial court
in this regard. (Maria P. v. Riles (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1281,
1295–1296; see Wagner v. Wagner (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th
249, 259 [failure of appellant to include transcript of hearing
foreclosed court’s review of claim of error].)

5
We note caselaw allows us to find that the “technical
presence of a cross-complaint does not violate the one final
judgment rule” where it appears “the cross-complaint here
was tried with the cause of action submitted to the jury, was
necessarily abandoned or decided adversely to the
[respondent], and was inadvertently omitted from the
judgment.” (Stubblefield Construction Co. v. City of San
Bernardino (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 687, 702, fn. 8.)
Here, however, the record provided to us in this case
does not demonstratively establish any of those scenarios; it
neither establishes that Novell’s first amended cross-
complaint has been resolved nor supports a finding under
Stubblefield. We conclude the presence of the unresolved
cross-complaint defeats appealability. (Angell, supra,
73 Cal.App.4th at p. 698.) As explained in ECC, under the
one final judgment rule, “ ‘an appeal cannot be taken from a
judgment that fails to complete the disposition of all the
causes of action between the parties.’ [Citation.] Even if the
various causes of action are tried separately or can be
characterized as independent of one another, there can be no
appeal taken until a final judgment that disposes of all
causes of action is entered. [Citation.] [¶] Where a complaint
and cross-complaint involving the same parties have been
filed, there is no final, appealable judgment until both have
been resolved.” (ECC, supra, 122 Cal.App.4th at p. 1002.)

6
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

STRATTON, P. J.

We concur:

VIRAMONTES, J.

SCHERB, J.

7