Fung v Mancia, San Francisco County Superior Court Case Number CGC-17-556612.


John Rueppel is described by the appellate court as the attorney for the plaintiff in the trial court. He is also listed as the attorney who filed the appeal:






From the court of appeals ruling it is Lawzilla's understanding the following happened:

Rueppel's client obtained a default against defendants, but failed to get a judgment despite six months going by. Defendants moved to reverse their default which the trial court granted. Rueppel appealed the order, but the court of appeal dismissed the appeal because the order was not appealable. Rueppel had claimed the default could not be reversed because more than 6 months had passed, but the judges noted this law only applied to judgments and Rueppel had not obtained a judgment following the default.

Breaking this down.

Plaintiff, represented by Rueppel's law firm, filed a lawsuit. The defense attorney reserved a date to change venue alleging the lawsuit had been filed in the wrong county.

However, the venue motion was apparently not filed with the court. Rueppel then took a default against defendants.

Defendants' attorney proposed a stipulation to reverse the default, but attorney Rueppel said he and his client declined to agree.




More than six months later defendants filed a motion to vacate the default.

John Rueppel, Esq., argued the motion was too late because there was a six month deadline and it was not filed in a reasonable amount of time.




The trial court granted defendants' motion to vacate the default.

The judge also ordered defendants to make Rueppel and his client whole by paying their legal fees and costs.




Not satisfied, Rueppel filed an appeal.

The court of appeal noted attorney Rueppel's appeal claimed there was an order after judgment which was appealable.

However, there was no judgment. John Rueppel had obtained a default, but not a judgment - despite the passage of more than half a year.

The justices said the order Rueppel appealed from is not appealable.

The court of appeals gave Rueppel a chance to explain how he could legally file an appeal, but he did not file a brief in response.




The justices then considered whether there "unusual circumstances" letting them review the appeal even though the order was not appealable.

They concluded no, noting John Rueppel's client could not prevail anyway because Rueppel was wrong about the 6-month issue.

The justices noted if there was a default judgment then there would be a six-month limit on filing a motion to vacate.

But because Mr. Rueppel had, despite more than six months passing, not obtained a judgment after taking a default, there was no time limit to file the motion to vacate.




The appeal was then unanimously dismissed and defendants were awarded payment of their costs.






Lawzilla Commentary and Review:

The court of appeals opinion reads like the keystone cops in describing the actions of both attorneys. Neither was described in a way that would give us much confidence in hiring them.

With respect to attorney John Rueppel, the judges noted:

- He declined to stipulate to vacate the default.

- He never obtained a judgment after the default despite more than six months going by. We are not sure, then, what the purpose of the default was.

- He misrepresented that he was appealing from an order following a judgment, when in fact there was no judgment.

- He appealed from a non-appealable order.

- He was wrong on the law about there being a six month limit for defendants to move to vacate the judgment.

- His client now owes costs to defendants.

The end result seemed to be a huge waste of time and money.

One may want to consider the legal competence involved that was being described by the judges.

was admitted to the California Bar in 2009. Bar Number 267467.

O'Neil and Rueppel, LLP
100 Pine Street Suite 1250
San Francisco, California 94111

Law School: Hastings College of Law




When we visited Rueppel's website we saw this:


First, this attorney lacks basic grammar skills. He may want to learn when an apostrophe is used. It looks amateurish. We wonder if this type of basic mistake impacts how judges view the attorney when they read his briefs. How embarrassing!

Second, Rueppel hardly provides the "best" results, and obviously not "impeccable" results - as one can read from the unanimous court of appeals justices.