Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. BS092529. Edward J. Ferns, Judge.
Peter Hoffman in pro per; Gipson Hoffman & Pancione, Kenneth I. Sidle, and Corey J. Spivey, for Defendant and Appellant.
Entertainment Law Group, David T. Stowell, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
RUBIN, J.
Peter Hoffman appeals from the trial court’s nunc pro tunc order stating the amount of interest he owes on an arbitration award to Jonesfilm. We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
This is the second appeal by Peter Hoffman in proceedings that began as a contractual arbitration over disputed rights to a movie sequel among Lions Gate Films, NTTS Productions, Ltd. and respondent Jonesfilm. In July 2004, the arbitrator issued his award and directed NTTS Productions to pay Jonesfilm several hundred thousand dollars in compensation, legal costs, and fees.
In December 2004, the trial court affirmed the award and adopted it as the court’s judgment. Of particular importance to the appeal now before us, the court declared that interest on the award started to accrue in July 2004. Its judgment stated: “Interest shall accrue at the legal annual rate of ten percent from July 20, 2004, the date of the Arbitrator’s issuance of the award . . . .”
One month after it entered its judgment, the trial court found appellant Peter Hoffman was the alter ego of NTTS Productions, Inc. Thus, the court amended its judgment to add appellant as a judgment debtor. The amendment entered on March 18, 2005, stated:
“[T]his Judgment [is] hereby amended to include Peter Hoffman as a Judgment Debtor hereto as the alter ego to NTTS Productions, Ltd., and Peter Hoffman shall be jointly and severally liable for all of the obligations of NTTS Productions, Ltd. to Jonesfilm under this Judgment.”
In the wake of the court’s amended judgment adding him as NTTS’s alter ego, Hoffman took his first appeal in these proceedings. In May 2006, we affirmed the amended judgment. (Jonesfilm v. Hoffman (B183198) at pp. 1, 4) A few months later, the Supreme Court denied appellant’s petition for review.
The court’s amended judgment having become final, Jonesfilm applied to the clerk of the superior court for a writ of execution. Because the judgment did not state on its face the dollar amount of interest that NTTS owed – only that it began to accrue at 10 percent starting July 20, 2004 – the clerk refused to issue the writ. Consequently, Jonesfilm moved to have the court issue an order compelling the clerk to sign the writ, or, alternatively, tell the clerk the amount of accrued interest.
Appellant opposed the motion. He argued he became liable for paying interest on NTTS’s behalf only when the court amended its judgment in March 2005 to name him NTTS’s alter ego. The court rejected appellant’s argument, and calculated he owed $19,207 in accrued interest starting from the day the original judgment was entered on July 20, 2004. Now in the second of his appeals, Hoffman asserts the July 20, 2004 accrual date does not apply to him.
DISCUSSION
Hoffman contends interest on the arbitration award did not begin to accrue against him until March 2005 when the court entered its amended judgment to name him NTTS’s alter ego. The amendment stated:
“[T]his Judgment [is] hereby amended to include Peter Hoffman as a Judgment Debtor hereto as the alter ego to NTTS Productions, Ltd., and Peter Hoffman shall be jointly and severally liable for all the obligations of NTTS Productions, Ltd. to Jonesfilm under this Judgment.”
The amended (and original) judgment obligated NTTS to pay Jonesfilm interest on the arbitration award starting from July 20, 2004. Because appellant’s first appeal to us in Jonesfilm v. Hoffman (B183198) involved the amended judgment, appellant could have raised his contention about the date interest began to accrue in that appeal, but chose not to; his first appeal centered instead on the propriety of naming him NTTS’s alter ego. We concluded in that appeal he was properly NTTS’s alter ego, making him liable for NTTS’s obligations.
Appellant cites no authority that he may mount a second appeal in order to raise a point he could have argued in an earlier appeal from the same judgment. One may not take piecemeal appeals from one judgment. (See, e.g., Walker v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (2005) 35 Cal.4th 15, 21-22 [judicial policy against multiple appeals]; 9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Appeal, § 58, pp. 113-114.) Having elected in his earlier appeal not to contest the accrual date, the date became final at that time. (Accord Gonzales v. R. J. Novick Constr. Co. (1978) 20 Cal.3d 798, 804-806; ReadyLink Healthcare v. Cotton (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1015; see also Eisenberg et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Appeals and Writs (The Rutter Group) ¶¶ 2:316-317, p. 2-146.12.)
Appellant nevertheless contends he was excused from raising the accrual date in his first appeal because the trial court had not ruled when interest accrued against him. The judgment shows otherwise. When the court named appellant the alter ego of NTTS and added him as a judgment debtor, the amended judgment explicitly made appellant liable for all of NTTS’s obligations – “Peter Hoffman shall be jointly and severally liable for all the obligations of NTTS Productions.” The only modification to the amended judgment between appellant’s first appeal and the appeal here is the court’s arithmetic calculating the amount of accrued interest, but appellant does not dispute the court’s math. He has therefore waived any argument about the accrual date. Accordingly, we do not reach the merits of his contention that the court erred in finding his liability for accrued interest began on July 20, 2004.
Appellant describes County of Solano v. Lionsgate Corp. (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 741, as “squarely on point.” We are reluctant to even address the decision because appellant cites it for the merits of his current appeal on a legal point that he was obligated to raise in his first appeal – whether the July 2004 judgment date applies to him. County of Solano stated that interest does not begin to accrue until entry of a final judgment. (Id. at p. 753.) From that statement, appellant draws the conclusion that interest did not accrue against him until the court added him to the judgment in March 2005. The flaw that besets appellant’s conclusion is he ignores his alter ego relationship with NTTS and NTTS’s liability for interest beginning in July 2004.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Respondent to recover its costs on appeal.
WE CONCUR: COOPER, P. J., FLIER, J.