Filed 8/6/18 Newland v. County of Los Angeles CA2/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

JAKE NEWLAND,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES,

Defendant and Respondent.

B280487

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. BC514945)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Patrick T. Madden, Judge. Reversed.

Law Offices of Martin N. Buchanan and Martin N. Buchanan; Panish, Shea & Boyle, Rahul Ravipudi, Thomas A. Schultz, Erika Contreras, for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Collins Collins Muir & Stewart, Brian K. Stewart, Joshua A. Cohen, Christian E. Foy Nagy; Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland, Timothy T. Coates, Edward L. Xanders, Feris M. Greenberger, for Defendant and Respondent.

__________________________

Plaintiff and appellant Jake Newland appeals from a post-judgment order directing defendant and respondent County of Los Angeles to pay a judgment of $14 million over 10 years. This appellate court reversed the judgment in Newland v. County of Los Angeles (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 676. “With the judgment vacated, incidental matters, proceedings, or claims based on the judgment are likewise nullified.” (9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (5th ed. 2008) Appeal, § 869, p. 929.) The disposition reversing the judgment also reversed the post-judgment order governing disbursement of the judgment. Therefore, Newland’s appeal from the post-judgment order must be reversed. (See Evans v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1378, 1388 [reversing the judgment operated to vacate the award of costs incident to the judgment, so plaintiff’s appeal of order denying motion to tax costs dismissed as moot].)

The post-judgment order authorizing the County to pay the judgment over 10 years is reversed. The parties are to bear their own costs on appeal.

MOOR, J.

We concur:

BAKER, Acting P.J.

KIM, J.