Wednesday, May 6, 2026
Page 1
Judge Erred in Finding Limitations Period Had Expired; It Hadn’t Begun—C.A.
Opinion Says Taking Matter Off Calendar Is Not Appealable Order
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The Court of Appeal for this district has held that where a woman gained a temporary civil harassment restraining order against another resident in a condominium complex but did not appear at the hearing on her petition, resulting in the matter being taken off calendar, the defendant did not act tardily when, 10 months later, she sought an award of $14,072.50 in attorney fees.
Ventura Superior Court Judge Amy E. Van Sickle denied the fee request by defendant Barbra Williamson, reasoning that the August 2023 order dissolving the temporary restraining and putting the matter off calendar “resolved the case completely,” “disposed of all issues between the parties,” and “was an appealable order,” triggering the start of the limitations period for making a fee motion. That period, under court rules, is 60 days after service of notice of the entry of a judgment or appealable order or, absent such notice, 180 days.
Reversal of the order came Monday in an opinion by Justice Hernaldo J. Baltodano of Div. Six. The justice did not decide whether plaintiff Diane Raheb or Williamson, or neither prevailed, but did determine that the period for bringing a fee motion had not expired because it never began.
Nonappealable Order
He explained:
“The trial court’s denial of Williamson’s motion for attorney’s fees presumes that the August 2023 order is an appealable order. An order taking Raheb’s petition off calendar, however, is not appealable.…The August 2023 order did not determine the final rights of the parties. The trial court did not (and still has not) made a determination on Raheb’s petition, and the case has not been dismissed.”
The opinion continues:
“The trial court noted as much in its denial of Williamson’s motion, stating the petition had not been dismissed and had been ‘lingering.’ Had the trial court denied Raheb’s petition in August 2023, Williamson’s fee motion would be untimely. But that is not what occurred here. The court stated that Raheb’s petition ‘has never been denied or withdrawn or the case dismissed and has been lingering.’ ”
Wrong Approach
Baltodano commented:
“Taking the matter off calendar, rather than dismissing the petition, can lead to confusion among the parties, who understandably want the matter to be final. Merely taking the matter off calendar renders uncertainty as to the case’s finality, and is not a final determination: it is a postponement. And because there is no final determination on Raheb’s petition, there is no ‘prevailing party.’ ”
The matter was shunted back to the Superior Court “for the trial court to rule on Raheb’s petition, to determine the prevailing party, and to exercise its discretion whether to award attorney’s fees and costs.”
The case is Raheb v. Williamson, B343023.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company