Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Katrina P. Petrini sued Scott Simon and Simon Group Consulting, Inc. in Santa Clara County Superior Court in March 2025, alleging wrongful termination and retaliation. She claimed defendants fired her while she was on approved family leave and then retaliated by issuing an untrue and defamatory termination letter, filing complaints with the Employment Development Department to block her unemployment benefits, circulating a defamatory letter about her work experience, and filing additional cases against her, her husband, and his companies. She sought $125,000,000 in damages.
Petrini filed multiple ex parte applications for a preliminary injunction. On June 4, 2025, she filed a notice of ex parte application for injunction, which the trial court denied in a written order signed June 9 and filed June 10, stating she had failed to establish a likelihood of prevailing on the merits. On June 25, 2025, she filed a document titled "Plaintiff's 4th Amended Notice of Ex Parte Application for Injunction," which the trial court denied in an order signed and filed June 30, again finding no likelihood of prevailing on the merits.
Petrini filed a notice of appeal stating she was appealing "the order denying Plaintiff's 4th Amended Ex Parte Application for Injunction issued on June 30, 2025." In her opening brief, however, under the heading "The Precise Order Being Appealed," she stated she was appealing from "the trial court's formal order dated June 6, 2025." No order was issued or filed on June 6; the court of appeal concluded she apparently meant the June 9 order, since her record citations pointed to that order.
The Court’s Holding
The court of appeal held it lacked jurisdiction to review the June 9 order (or any June 6 order) because the notice of appeal specified only the June 30 order. Although notices of appeal are liberally construed in favor of sufficiency under California Rules of Court, rule 8.100(a)(2), that rule does not apply where the notice is so specific it cannot be read as reaching an order not mentioned at all. The June 9 and June 30 orders were separately appealable orders addressing distinct applications filed on different days, and a notice of appeal from one appealable order does not encompass other separately appealable orders. The court noted Petrini herself understood the applications were discrete, citing her email to defense counsel after the June 9 order stating she would be "filing another injunction … on Monday, under the same terms that you already opposed."
As to the June 30 order—the only order identified in the notice of appeal—the court held Petrini waived any challenge because her opening brief contained no argument explaining why that order should be reversed and did not mention it at all. A trial court judgment is presumed correct, and the appellant bears the burden of demonstrating error through meaningful legal analysis supported by citations to authority and the record. Points asserted without reasoned argument and citations are treated as waived. The court emphasized that self-represented parties are held to the same rules of appellate procedure as represented parties.
The court affirmed the June 30, 2025 order and awarded defendants their costs on appeal under California Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(1). Because Petrini filed no reply brief, the court was left without any explanation for the discrepancy between her notice of appeal and her opening brief.
Key Takeaways
- A notice of appeal that clearly and unmistakably identifies only one appealable order cannot be liberally construed to reach a different, separately appealable order, even one addressing similar relief.
- When multiple orders occurring close in time are each separately appealable, each must be expressly specified in a notice of appeal to be reviewable.
- An appellant who fails to present any argument directed at the order identified in the notice of appeal waives any challenge to that order, and the trial court's ruling will be affirmed as presumed correct.
- Self-represented litigants are held to the same standards of appellate procedure as attorneys, including the requirement of reasoned argument supported by citations to authority and the record.
- Filing a reply brief can be critical; here, the absence of one left the appellate court without any explanation for the mismatch between the notice of appeal and the opening brief.
Why It Matters
This unpublished decision reinforces two foundational principles of California appellate practice: jurisdictional limits imposed by the notice of appeal and the appellant's burden to present reasoned argument. It illustrates how even a sympathetic underlying dispute—a $125 million wrongful termination and retaliation claim—can founder on procedural grounds when the notice of appeal and briefing target different orders.
The case serves as a practical warning to litigants, particularly those representing themselves, to carefully identify the correct order in the notice of appeal and to direct substantive argument at that order in the opening brief. The court's reliance on established precedent including In re J.F., Filbin v. Fitzgerald, and Faunce v. Cate confirms that these jurisdictional and waiver rules are applied uniformly regardless of the appellant's sophistication or the stakes of the underlying case.