California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People ex rel. Feuer v. Progressive Horizon, Inc., 204 Cal.Rptr.3d 52, 248 Cal.App.4th 533 (Cal. App. 2016):
Defendants make numerous arguments of error on appeal, many of which focus on the order granting the preliminary injunction. However, defendants did not timely appeal that order. (Code Civ. Proc., 904.1, subd. (a)(6) [orders granting injunctions are appealable]; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.104(a)(1) [notice of appeal must be filed on or before the earliest of 60 days following notice of entry of judgment or 180 days after entry of judgment].) Because defendants did not appeal the order granting the preliminary injunction, the only issue before us is whether the trial court erred when it denied defendants' motion to dissolve the injunction based on defendants' belated compliance with the LiveScan requirement of Proposition D in 2015 after having failed to comply in 2013 and 2014. (Code Civ. Proc., 904.1, subd. (a)(6) [orders refusing to dissolve injunctions are appealable]; Malatka v. Helm (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1074, 1084, 116 Cal.Rptr.3d 343 [When appealing an order denying a motion to dissolve an injunction, defendants are
[248 Cal.App.4th 539]
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.