Los Angeles Appellate Resources
Significant Opinions for Practitioners
Each month I flag a handful of published and unpublished Second District opinions that bear on civil or criminal procedure or evidence — the kind of ruling that changes how an appellate practitioner briefs, files, or tries a case, as distinct from a holding that only matters because of its particular facts. The common thread across every entry is significance to trial-level practice broadly — civil and criminal procedure, evidence, and jurisdiction — not the substantive area of law a case happens to involve. This page is curated, not comprehensive; the goal is a short, useful list, not a docket dump.
On unpublished opinions. A small number of the opinions below are unpublished and cannot be cited or relied on in any other California proceeding under Rule of Court 8.1115. They are included, and marked as such, because the procedural reasoning is still useful to understand even where it carries no citable weight.
Updated monthly. Older entries remain on the page under their original month; nothing is removed as it ages. Last updated 2026-08-31.
August 2026
Anabi Oil Corporation v. Fuel Enterprise, Inc. (unpublished; 2026) Docket No. B337933 (consolidated with B340224) Civil Procedure Unpublished Preservation — objections to a statement of decision
Where a trial court's proposed statement of decision finds that a party actually relied on a misrepresentation but never clearly resolves whether that reliance was reasonable — a distinct element of fraud — an objection that attacks the court's reasonableness determination as unsupported by the evidence, without using the word "omission" or "ambiguity," can still be specific enough to preserve the defect under Code of Civil Procedure section 634, because the objection identifies a finding the proposed decision does not actually contain.
Why it matters: Section 634 objections are unforgiving in practice, and this opinion is a rare instance of an objection surviving a sufficiency challenge on close facts — with a full dissent arguing the opposite result. Do not assume that phrasing an objection as a factual disagreement automatically waives it if the proposed statement of decision never actually made the finding you're disputing; conversely, do not rely on this outcome without a clean record, since the dissent shows a differently constituted panel could easily go the other way. The safer practice remains unchanged: when an ultimate fact is missing or unclear, say so explicitly using the omission/ambiguity language section 634 contemplates, rather than trusting a court to read that meaning into a differently worded objection.
Owens v. Menzies Aviation (USA), Inc. (unpublished; 2024) Docket No. B324385 Civil Procedure Unpublished Appealability — timeliness of notice of appeal
Where a party moves to lift an arbitration stay and the trial court grants that motion, a later motion styled as reconsideration — or, in the alternative, a renewed motion to compel arbitration — does not create a second, independently appealable order or extend the time to appeal the original stay ruling. The clerk's mailing of a minute order together with a separately file-stamped certificate of mailing satisfied the single-document rule of Alan v. American Honda Motor Co. for triggering the shorter appeal deadline, so a notice of appeal filed more than 60 days after that mailing was untimely and the appeal was dismissed.
Why it matters: This is a real trap for anyone appealing from an order compelling or refusing to compel arbitration. Filing a motion for reconsideration — even styled in the alternative as a renewed motion to compel — does not toll or restart the appeal clock on the underlying order, and courts will look past the label a party puts on its own motion. Calendar the appeal deadline from the original order, not from the ruling on any later reconsideration motion, unless you have confirmed the reconsideration motion independently qualifies for the extension under rule 8.108.
About this page
Inclusion here reflects an editorial judgment about which opinions are likely to matter to a practicing appellate lawyer, not a ranking of legal importance generally. An unpublished opinion may not be cited or relied on by a court or a party in any other action under California Rule of Court 8.1115.