Lawyers for the Hollywood Foreign Press Association and ousted member Magnus Sundholm are asking a Los Angeles judge to bring their long-running legal fight to an official end, setting up what could be the last procedural move in a case that has shadowed the Golden Globes group since 2021.
They want Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Wendy Chang to enter judgment in the HFPA’s favor after a procedural curveball from the California Second District Court of Appeal. The appellate court recently signaled that a previous ruling tossing several of Sundholm’s claims left “no appealable order,” which effectively froze any routine appeal. If Judge Chang signs off, this latest filing would mark the closing chapter of Sundholm’s suit over his expulsion from the organization.
According to MyNewsLA, attorneys for both Sundholm and the HFPA filed joint papers in Judge Chang’s department in Los Angeles County Superior Court. Those papers, submitted in the same courthouse where the dispute has played out since 2021, ask the trial court to enter a decree formally entering judgment for the HFPA after the appellate court’s notice that it currently has nothing final to review.
How the case began
Sundholm, a journalist with Sweden’s Aftonbladet and an HFPA member since 2008, was expelled by the organization in October 2021 and sued that December for wrongful termination and loss of membership benefits, as reported by the Los Angeles Times. In his complaint, he says the HFPA leaned on an erroneous entry on an IRS form that was tied to a whistleblower complaint and used it as a pretext to kick him out.
The HFPA has publicly maintained that it expelled Sundholm after accusing him of “fraudulent, illegal conduct that was contrary to the interests of the HFPA,” a position reflected in court filings and coverage at the time. Sundholm, for his part, says the IRS misidentification was simply a mistake and that his ouster was retaliation for raising concerns internally about the association.
A connection to Kjersti Flaa's suit
Sundholm’s lawsuit also draws a line to a separate legal battle brought by his partner, Norwegian journalist Kjersti Flaa. In 2020, Flaa sued the HFPA on antitrust grounds and accused the organization of fostering a “culture of corruption” that locked out qualified applicants from membership, according to Vanity Fair. Reporting and litigation tied to Flaa’s case helped fuel the wave of scrutiny and eventual reforms that rocked the HFPA in the years that followed.
In court, HFPA lawyers have argued that Sundholm’s suit is legally defective and appears aimed at punishing the association for refusing Flaa’s membership bid, MyNewsLA reports. Their joint request to Judge Chang asks for a clear judgment in the HFPA’s favor, which would shut down the case at the trial-court level.
What "no appealable order" means
When the Court of Appeal says there is “no appealable order,” it is essentially telling the parties the case is not yet in the right posture for review. Under California procedure, appeals generally move forward only from final judgments or certain specific types of orders. Without that, the appellate court lacks jurisdiction to weigh in, according to guidance from the California Courts.
That kind of notice often prompts exactly what is happening here: the parties return to the trial court and ask the judge to enter a final judgment that wraps up any remaining claims. Once such a judgment is on the books, it becomes the kind of ruling that can ordinarily be appealed.
What comes next
If Judge Chang signs the decree the parties are requesting, it would formally end Sundholm’s remaining claims in superior court and hand the HFPA a procedural win. Anyone unhappy with that outcome would still have limited options, such as pursuing extraordinary writs, but a “no appealable order” finding makes the road to any routine, mid-case appeal significantly narrower.
Why Hollywood will watch
The HFPA has been under a harsh spotlight since 2020, when lawsuits and investigative reporting triggered internal reforms and a broader shake-up around the Golden Globes, as recounted by the Los Angeles Times. A final judgment in the Sundholm matter would be another chapter in the group’s ongoing struggle to move beyond its legal and reputational troubles.
At this point, the court has not acted on the joint request. The next visible move will be a minute order or signed decree from Judge Chang that either closes the book on the case or sends the parties back into further proceedings. Until then, the HFPA and one of its most vocal former insiders remain in procedural limbo while the industry watches from the sidelines.
