This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.


general / Appellate Practice

New Year's resolution: filing appeals on time

By Gary A. Watt

January is a time for recalibration, renewed goals, and New Year's resolutions. Here's a resolution always worthy of consideration: timely appeals. After all, it is fundamental that the Court of Appeal has no jurisdiction to hear an untimely appeal. Van Beurden Ins. Services, Inc. v. Customized Worldwide Weather Ins. Agency, Inc., 15 Cal. 4th 51, 56 (1997). Filing a timely notice of appeal should be simple. And yet, as a very recent unpublished opinion demonstrates, sometimes things go wrong. Manapat v. Hoffman, 2017 WL 222563 (Jan. 19, 2017). Nevertheless, if a few cautionary steps are remembered, filing a timely notice of appeal should be a resolution that's fairly easy for litigators to keep.

The starting point is Rule 8.104 of the California Rules of Court. Unless a statute or another rule says otherwise, it provides appellants with all-important deadlines for filing a notice of appeal. As Rule 8.104 states, normally, there are two potential deadlines of 60 or 180 days. If either the clerk or a party serves notice of entry of judgment (or an appealable order) or just a file-endorsed copy of the judgment (or appealable order), the 60 day time to appeal is running from the date of such service. If neither of those things happens, then there is a 180 day outer limit for filing a notice of appeal that runs from entry of the judgment/appealable order.

Rule 8.108 provides for extended time to appeal when particular motions are filed or for filing a cross-appeal. Rule 8.108 is the Cape Horn of appellate rules, a body of water littered with the shipwrecks of untimely appeals. The dangers arise from the interplay of Rule 8.108 and the underlying motion or motions being filed (for example, new trial, JNOV). This rule is worthy of a separate, lengthy article so suffice to say, proceed with extreme caution when seeking to determine its applicability.

So what happened in Manapat? The plaintiffs sued 14 defendants over title to real property. Twelve of the defendants demurred, and the trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend. A judgment of dismissal in favor of those 12 defendants was entered April 22. Notice of entry of judgment was served on the plaintiffs May 8. Then, on Aug. 25, the court entered another judgment identical to the April 22 judgment but also including the final two defendants. Notice of entry of that subsequent judgment was served Sept. 4 and only 45 days later, plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal.

All good, right?

Nope. With respect to the 12 demurring defendants, the appeal was untimely. What went wrong? Certain actions by the trial court, including entry of an unsigned minute order stating that the April 22 judgment should be "set aside," created confusion as to which judgment was operative. More confusion followed when the court entered yet another judgment as to three of the 12 demurring defendants already included in the April 22 judgment. The court then vacated that judgment. Ultimately, the court entered the Aug. 25 judgment that included all 14 of the defendants. In light of such court-induced confusion, shouldn't plaintiffs' appeal proceed?

Unfortunately, no, at least not as to the 12 demurring defendants. The time for filing a notice of appeal is jurisdictional. If the notice of appeal is untimely, the appellate court must dismiss the appeal. Van Beurden Ins. Services, Inc., 15 Cal. 4th at 56. And a court lacks the power to vacate, on its own motion, a judgment that is not void. Kimball Avenue v. Franco, 162 Cal. App. 4th 1224, 1230 (2008). Thus, the trial court's subsequent actions notwithstanding, since the April 22 judgment of dismissal as to the 12 demurring defendants was not void, and notice of entry was served on May 8th, the last day to appeal from that judgment came 60 days later on July 7. As the Court of Appeal put it in Manapat, "in the face of a validly served notice of entry of judgment ... 'the prudent course of action' would have been to appeal from the April 22 judgment as well."

Does it really all come down to when in doubt, file a notice of appeal? Sometimes it might. But how about some additional New Year's resolutions for civil litigators designed to reduce uncertainty about when to appeal:

* When it comes to appealable orders, read the list set forth in Code of Civil Procedure Section 904.1;

* However, if a particular type of order is not listed in Section 904.1, do not assume the appeal is taken from the judgment. There are appealable orders not listed in 904.1. For example, orders denying class certification and orders directing the sealing/unsealing of records are appealable orders. So keep digging.

* Read Rule 8.104 to understand the "normal" deadline for filing a notice of appeal;

* In determining if time to appeal is running, remember that service of a file-endorsed copy of the judgment or order is sufficient to trigger the clock (reread Rule 8.104);

* Forget about the mailbox extension, it has no application to a notice of appeal;

* Never wait until the last day to file a notice of appeal; and

* Set sail solo, in the sea of Rule 8.108's "extended time," only if dead certain that errors and omissions premiums are fully paid, coverage limits are generous, and life jackets strapped on.

Manapat is a reminder that when it comes to timely appeals, things are not always as simple as it seems. So here's another good resolution for 2017: consult with an appellate lawyer well in advance of any potential deadline to appeal. Go on, try it. Appellate lawyers lead a somewhat solitary existence and are always happy to discuss appellate procedure. Unless of course, it's the last day to file a brief. But hey, that's another kind of resolution altogether. Have a happy and timely, New Year!

#32


Related Tests for Appellate practice

participatory/Appellate Practice

Sugar Wars: A New Hope

Feb. 16, 2018

Can required warning labels on soda advertisements pass First Amendment muster? An en banc 9th Circuit will reconsider the question, after striking such a San Francisco ordinance last year. Our guests Ted Mermin (Public Good Law Center), Ben Winig (ChangeLab Solutions) and Bob Corn-Revere (Davis Wright Tremaine) offer opposing viewpoints.

participatory/Appellate Practice

DACA and the Limits of Reliance

Feb. 9, 2018

Professor Zachary Price (UC Hastings College of the Law) discusses why courts should be wary of overstating the reliance interests that arise from federal non-enforcement regimes, and says that - whatever one's views on the underlying policy - separation of powers concerns recommend reversal of the Northern District's DACA injunction.


participatory/Appellate Practice

An 'Unsettling' Reversal?

Feb. 2, 2018

What does the 9th Circuit's unwinding of a multi-state class action settlement against Hyundai augur for future nationwide suits, or for already concluded claims like the ND CA's $15B Volkswagen settlement? Andrew Trask (McGuire Woods; Class Action Countermeasures) discusses.

general/Appellate Practice

When the 9th Circuit turns to the California Supreme Court

Aug. 25, 2017
By Peder K. Batalden, Felix Shafir

Recent cases suggests that the 9th Circuit might be applying a less stringent standard for when it feels obliged to certify a question about California law to the state high court


participatory/Appellate Practice

Evolving First and Second Amendments

Jul. 28, 2017
By David Kopel, Paul Alan Levy

Paul Levy (Public Citizen) says the 1DCA should have placed a higher burden on defamation plaintiffs seeking identities of anonymous online reviewers in 'ZL Technologies v. Doe'; David Kopel unpacks a D.C. Circuit gun ruling striking down 'good cause' requirements for public carry permits not unlike those approved of recently by the 9th Circuit

participatory/Appellate Practice

Arcane Clauses Employed

Jul. 21, 2017
By Zachary Clopton, Sophia Lakin, Theresa Lee

Guests discuss two lesser-known pieces of federal law gaining prominence in recent suits against the current administration; Professor Zachary Clopton (Cornell Law) addresses the threshold inquiry of whether Emoluments Clause questions are justiciable, and Sophia Lakin and Theresa Lee (ACLU) discuss their Federal Advisory Committee Act claims just filed against President Trump's Committee on Election Integrity


participatory/Appellate Practice

PAGA prevails; Takings doctrine gets trickier

Jul. 14, 2017
By Glenn Danas, Bryan W. Wenter

A unanimous California Supreme Court deems discovery of fellow employee contact information in PAGA claims permissible, as lead counsel Glenn Danas explains (Capstone Law APC); and Bryan Wenter (Miller Starr Regalia) discusses how SCOTUS passed up a perfect opportunity this term to clarify Takings law, and instead rendered it even more complex