Dilday v. Jones CA5
F077682
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jan 12, 2022Background
- Plaintiffs (Mary Ann Ferrero, Tanna and Russell Dilday) sued defendants (Mikal Jones, Angela Anderson, Bi‑Rite Auto Transport) over a pipeline easement and related tort claims; Pleasant Valley Canal Company was a cross‑defendant.
- After a court trial the trial court issued a tentative decision, overruled defendants’ objections at a February 21, 2018 hearing (when defendants’ counsel was late), and entered final judgment on February 26, 2018.
- Plaintiffs served a notice of entry of judgment on March 6, 2018, starting the 60‑day appeal period that expired May 7, 2018.
- Defendants filed a "Motion to Reconsider/Relief From Default" on March 8, 2018; the court granted a hearing (April 23, 2018) and later denied requests to modify, amend, revoke or reopen the judgment (May 10, 2018), stating the February 26 judgment "will remain the judgment of the Court."
- Defendants filed their notice of appeal on May 24, 2018 (79 days after the notice of entry). The Court of Appeal considered whether the appeal was timely and dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of appeal from Feb. 26, 2018 judgment | Dilday: appeal was late; appeal period ran from March 6 service and expired May 7 | Jones: appeal timely because judgment was vacated/reinstated or appeal period tolled by postjudgment motion | Appeal was untimely; must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Did postjudgment orders vacate or reinstate the Feb. 26 judgment? | Dilday: postjudgment orders did not vacate judgment; it remained in effect | Jones: April/May orders effectively revoked and later reinstated the Feb. 26 judgment, restarting appeal clock | Court: orders unambiguous — judgment was not vacated or suspended and "will remain the judgment"; no restart of appeal period |
| Did defendants’ March 8 motion extend the appeal period? | Dilday: motion did not extend time because it was a reconsideration/motion filed after judgment | Jones: motion to reconsider/for relief tolled or extended time to appeal | Court: motion to reconsider after judgment does not extend appeal time under Rule 8.108(e); appeal deadline was not tolled |
Key Cases Cited
- Ramon v. Aerospace Corp., 50 Cal.App.4th 1233 (1996) (motion to reconsider filed after judgment does not extend time to appeal)
- Passavanti v. Williams, 225 Cal.App.3d 1602 (1990) (court’s unrestricted power to change judgment ends once judgment is entered; relief is limited thereafter)
- Van Beurden Ins. Servs., Inc. v. Customized Worldwide Weather Ins. Agency, Inc., 15 Cal.4th 51 (1997) (time for appealing a judgment is jurisdictional)
- Drum v. Superior Court, 139 Cal.App.4th 845 (2006) (appellate courts must raise timeliness defects sua sponte)
- Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007) (timely filing of a notice of appeal is jurisdictional; courts cannot create equitable exceptions)
- Sanchez v. Strickland, 200 Cal.App.4th 758 (2011) (substantial modification of a judgment restarts the appeal period)
- CC–California Plaza Assocs. v. Paller & Goldstein, 51 Cal.App.4th 1042 (1996) (amendment that substantially modifies judgment starts new appeal period)
- Mendly v. County of Los Angeles, 23 Cal.App.4th 1193 (1994) (interpretation of postjudgment orders uses ordinary rules of construction)