HOLDINGS: [1]-Although no appealable judgment resulted when the trial court granted a demurrer to a first amended cross-complaint without leave to amend and struck a second amended cross-complaint, the rulings were deemed to include an appealable judgment of dismissal; [2]-The trial court acted within the scope of its authority to strike unauthorized pleadings under Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (b), because amendment as a matter of right under Code Civ. Proc., § 472, subd. (a), was limited to the original version of the cross-complaint and Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (e)(1), created no entitlement to three opportunities to amend; [3]-Denying leave to amend was not error; [4]-The denial of a stay under Code Civ. Proc., § 916, subd. (a), was not appealable and the notice requirement for a petition for writ of supersedeas under Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.116, had not been satisfied. Parties’ San Diego litigation lawyer appeal.
Outcome
Judgment affirmed.
