DAVID MEINHARDT,
S274147
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
July 29, 2024
Fourth Appellate District, Division One, D079451; Santa Clara County Superior Court, 19CV346911
Justice Jenkins authored the opinion of the Court, in which Justices Corrigan, Liu, Kruger, Groban, Evans, and Sanchez* concurred.
* Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
S274147
Opinion of the Court by Jenkins, J.
We granted review in this case to resolve uncertainty about when the time to appeal starts to run in writ of administrative mandate2 proceedings pursuant to section
“The time of appealability, having jurisdictional consequences, should above all be clear.” (Budinich v. Becton Dickinson and Co. (1988) 486 U.S. 196, 202.) “[B]right lines are essential in this area, to avoid both inadvertent forfeiture of the right to appeal and excessive protective appeals by parties afraid they might suffer such a forfeiture.” (In re Baycol Cases I & II (2011) 51 Cal.4th 751, 761 (Baycol).) “‘Neither parties nor appellate courts should be required to speculate about jurisdictional time limits.‘” (Alan v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 894, 905 (Alan).)
Given these considerations, and for the reasons set forth below, we adopt a “bright line[]” rule (Baycol, supra, 51 Cal.4th at p. 761) that the time to appeal in administrative mandate proceedings starts to run with entry of “judgment” or service of notice of entry of “judgment,” rather than with the filing of, or service of notice of the filing of, an “order,” minute order, or other ruling. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal, which held to the contrary.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In May 2019, the City of Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety (Department) imposed a 44-hour suspension on Officer David Meinhardt (Meinhardt), and the City of Sunnyvale Personnel Board (the Board) upheld the suspension. Meinhardt challenged the suspension by filing a petition for writ of administrative mandate in the superior court, naming the Board as a defendant and the Department as real party in interest (together, the City). On August 6, 2020, after briefing and a hearing, the court filed a document entitled “ORDER” (the August 6 Order) containing factual findings and legal rulings and concluding, “the Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandamus is DENIED.” The clerk of the court served the August 6 Order on the parties by mail the same day. On August 14, 2020, the City served Meinhardt with a judicial council form CIV-130 entitled “Notice of Entry of Judgment or Order,” along with a file-stamped copy of the August 6 Order.
On September 4, 2020, the parties signed and submitted to the court a document entitled “JUDGMENT” that stated, “On August 6, 2020, the Court issued an Order Denying Petitioner David Meinhardt‘s Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandamus.... For the reasons set forth in the Order, the Court hereby enters Judgment for Respondents City of Sunnyvale, et al., and against Petitioner David Meinhardt, who shall take nothing by this action. [¶] IT IS SO ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED.” The court signed this document on September 17, 2020, and Meinhardt served on the City a
On October 15, 2020, Meinhardt filed a notice of appeal from the September 25 Judgment. The Court of Appeal requested briefing on the appeal‘s timeliness and thereafter dismissed the appeal as untimely, concluding the August 6 Order was the “final judgment” from which Meinhardt should have appealed because it “denied” his mandate petition “in its entirety and did not contemplate any further action in the case.” (Meinhardt, supra, 76 Cal.App.5th at p. 63.) In so concluding, the Court of Appeal acknowledged a split in published authority on the timeliness issue but chose to follow Laraway v. Pasadena Unified School District (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 579 (Laraway) and City of Calexico, supra, 64 Cal.App.5th 180, which held that the time to appeal in writ proceedings5 starts from the filing of — or service of a file-endorsed copy of (together with a document reflecting the date of service of) — an order or ruling that is sufficiently final to constitute the judgment, not from a subsequent entry of judgment. (Meinhardt, at pp. 51, 67–68.) We granted Meinhardt‘s petition for review, which asserted that his notice of appeal was timely filed, within 60 days of service of notice of entry of the September 25 Judgment.
DISCUSSION
I. Appealability of “Judgments” in Administrative Mandate Proceedings
The right to appeal in California is “entirely statutory and subject to complete legislative control.” (Trede v. Superior Court (1943) 21 Cal.2d 630, 634 (Trede); see Griset v. Fair Political Practices Com. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 688, 696 (Griset) [whether a trial court‘s order is appealable is determined by statute].) Although the Judicial Council, in the California Rules of Court, has prescribed procedural rules governing the appellate process, it “does not have power to” promulgate rules that “restrict the statutory right of appeal.” (In re Aaron R. (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 697, 704.) Consequently, a rule “construed to define a right of appeal more restrictive than the right of appeal afforded by” statute “would be ‘to that extent void.‘” (Ibid.)
Reviewing courts likewise must remain true to statutes. “Though the rules governing appealability have common law roots,” courts “are not at liberty to modify those [common law] contours in ways at odds with the statutory language.” (Baycol, supra, 51 Cal.4th at p. 759, fn. 5.) “A reviewing court‘s obligation to exercise the appellate jurisdiction with which it is vested, once that jurisdiction has been properly invoked, is established and not open to question.” (Leone v. Medical Board (2000) 22 Cal.4th 660, 669.) Similarly, an appellate court generally lacks jurisdiction to decide an appeal from an order unless the order is one that is expressly made appealable by statute. (Griset, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 698; Garau v. Torrance Unified School Dist. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 192, 198.)
Many “orders” are not statutorily appealable, and an appeal must therefore be taken from a “judgment” before the trial court‘s decision may be reviewed. This includes orders granting judgment on the pleadings (Varjabedian v. City of Madera (1977) 20 Cal.3d 285, 289, fn. 1), orders denying motions for a new trial (Walker v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (2005) 35 Cal.4th 15, 19), and orders sustaining demurrers without leave to amend (Berri v. Superior Court (1955) 43 Cal.2d 856, 860) (Berri).
An order granting or denying a petition for writ of administrative mandate is also not enumerated in
Consistent with the language of
The Legislature‘s “complete control” over the right to appeal, the “entirely statutory” nature of the right to appeal (Trede, supra, 21 Cal.2d at p. 634), and the plain language of
II. “Judgments” and Timeliness of Administrative Mandate Appeals
Despite the requirement of a “judgment,” the significance of the one judgment rule, and statutory limitations on what is appealable, reviewing courts, including ours, have deemed orders and other rulings to be the “judgments” under certain circumstances, such as when the ruling is sufficiently final to constitute the one judgment in the case, to promote judicial economy, to preserve a party‘s right to appeal, and to permit appellate review on the merits. (E.g., Saben, Earlix & Associates v. Fillet (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1024, 1030 [“some courts have chosen to treat an appeal from an order . . . as an appeal from a subsequently entered judgment, or even to deem the order itself to be a judgment, in order to save the faulty appeal“]; Morgan v. Imperial Irrigation Dist. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 892, 904 [“exercis[ing] its discretion [to] treat” as an appealable judgment a “statement of decision” that disposed of all issues].)
This practice has been common in cases involving orders that reflect the trial court‘s final decision but are not statutorily appealable, such as orders granting summary judgment (Sullivan v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 278, 307, fn. 10) and orders sustaining demurrers without leave to amend (In re Social Services Payment Cases (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1249, 1262, fn. 4 [treating an appeal “taken from the nonappealable order sustaining the demurrer as a premature but valid notice of appeal from the subsequently entered judgment“].) In In re Social Services Payment Cases, at page 1262, footnote 4, the Court of Appeal cited in support of its decision former rule 8.104(e)(2), now
Appellate courts have followed this practice in the context of administrative mandate proceedings as well. In Tomra Pacific, Inc. v. Chiang (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 463, 481-482 (Tomra Pacific), the Court of Appeal stated: “We note that the order denying the petitions for a writ of mandate is not termed a judgment and does not explicitly address the declaratory relief causes of action. Nevertheless, we are satisfied that the order before us constitutes an appealable final judgment as it left no issue for further consideration.” In another case, a different Court of Appeal stated: “Although the trial court never entered a formal judgment on the petition for writ of mandate, its order denying the petition in its entirety ‘constitutes a final judgment for purposes of an appeal.‘” (Sandlin v. McLaughlin (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 805, 820 (Sandlin).)
Relying on this practice of permitting an appeal by deeming a sufficiently final order or other ruling to be appealable, the Court of Appeal in this case dismissed the appeal, holding that in administrative mandate proceedings the filing of such an order is also the entry of judgment from which the time to
In Alan, the Court of Appeal dismissed as untimely an appeal from an order denying class certification8 because a minute order entitled “Ruling on Submitted Matter,” with an accompanying Statement of Decision, had been mailed to the parties 63 days earlier. (Alan, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 898, capitalization omitted.) Our court reversed, holding that unless and until a proper ” ‘Notice of Entry’ ” was served, the 60-day period in which to file the appeal under
‘Neither parties nor appellate courts should be required to speculate about jurisdictional time limits.’ ” (Id. at p. 905.)
The Court of Appeal in Davis v. Superior Court (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 669 (Davis), similarly distinguished between treating a ruling as a judgment for the purpose of preserving an appeal and doing so to
Similarly, here, the fact that an appellate court may preserve an appeal by deeming an order or other ruling to be a judgment does not necessarily mean the order or ruling is the judgment for all purposes, including commencing the time in which an appeal may be taken. It is in the context of preserving the right to appeal that we have stated that an order or other ruling constitutes a judgment. We are aware of no case of this court construing a court‘s ruling to be a judgment for the purpose of dismissing an appeal as untimely — in administrative mandate proceedings or otherwise — and we decline to do so here.
Instead, we conclude that the time to appeal in administrative mandate proceedings begins with the entry of “judgment” or service of notice of entry of “judgment,” not with the filing of an “order” or other ruling, or service of notice of filing of such a ruling, even where an appellate court might deem such a ruling appealable in order to vindicate the right of appeal. This conclusion is consistent with the plain language of the relevant statutes and rules that contemplate the entry of a “judgment,” and with “the well-established policy, based on the remedial character of the right of appeal, of according that right in doubtful cases ‘when such can be accomplished without doing violence to applicable rules.’ ” (Alan, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 901.)
Our conclusion is also consistent with the goal of providing clarity to litigants when it comes to jurisdictional deadlines. As stated above, “bright lines are essential in this area, to avoid both inadvertent forfeiture of the right to appeal and excessive protective appeals by parties afraid they might suffer such a forfeiture.” (Baycol, supra, 51 Cal.4th at p. 761.) “‘Neither parties nor
In contrast, a holding that an order or other ruling that is sufficiently final to constitute a judgment also commences the running of the time to appeal under
21:22.2.) The Meinhardt rule requires “attorneys [to] scrutinize any order adjudicating a writ,” which “may be titled ‘order,’ ‘statement of decision,’ ‘findings of fact and conclusions of law,’ or some other title,” depending on the court or the particular judge‘s practices. (Ibid.)
Insofar as the City argues that the definition of “judgment” as the “final determination of the rights of the parties” (
The City asserts that requiring entry of “judgment” to start the appellate clock would serve no purpose and could produce “unnecessary delay” in administrative mandate proceedings. It expresses concern that some trial judges, “for whatever reason,” delay in signing proposed judgments or entering a “document titled ‘judgment,’ thereby delaying any appellate review of the trial court‘s decision.” But the same may be said as to any civil action in which the trial court‘s decision must be in the form of a “judgment” to be appealable — for example, orders sustaining demurrers without leave to amend — yet this requirement does not appear to have caused undue delay because appellate courts are authorized to deem these orders to be judgments to permit the appeals to be proceed. (
The City also asserts that requiring entry of judgment would cause parties to purposefully “prop the door open for appellate review — for months or years.... If they can persuade the trial court to hold off from entering
Further, notwithstanding the City‘s description of the September 25 Judgment as an “irrelevant” document, a judgment is significant in that the time between the filing of an order or other ruling and entry of judgment allows the parties to request — and trial courts to make — changes to the order or other ruling before the trial court loses jurisdiction. (Safeco Ins. Co. v. Architectural Facades Unlimited, Inc. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1477, 1482 [trial court lost jurisdiction to consider motion for reconsideration upon entry of judgment]; Berri, supra, 43 Cal.2d at p. 860 [“an order sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend is not appealable as it is not the final judgment in the case” and “the trial court may reconsider its ruling after such an order but before judgment and come to a different conclusion“].) As we have explained, one of the reasons for the one judgment rule is that “[u]ntil a final judgment is rendered the trial court may completely obviate an appeal by altering the rulings from which an appeal would otherwise have been taken.” (Morehart, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 741, fn. 9.) “At any time before a judgment is entered the court may change its conclusions of law and enter a judgment different from that first announced, and [judges] who [have] heard the evidence may at any time before entry of judgment amend or change [their] findings of fact.” (Wilson v. Los Angeles County Emp. Association (1954) 127 Cal.App.2d 285, 289.) Once judgment is entered, the trial court “may correct judicial error only through certain limited procedures such as motions for new trial and motions to vacate the judgment.” (Passavanti v. Williams (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 1602, 1606.)11
We note that the City does not argue — and the Court of Appeal did not suggest — that the time to appeal in all civil cases begins with the filing of
The City argues that Dhillon supports its position and the Court of Appeal‘s holding, but the argument is unpersuasive because Dhillon did not address timeliness. There, a surgeon filed a petition for writ of administrative mandate challenging a hospital‘s decision to suspend his clinical privileges. (Dhillon, supra, 2 Cal.5th at p. 1116.) The trial court ruled the surgeon was entitled to an administrative hearing before suspension of his privileges and ordered the hospital owner to conduct such a hearing. (Ibid.) At the time, our Courts of Appeal disagreed as to whether rulings that partially granted writ petitions by ordering administrative hearings to take place were sufficiently final for purposes of appealability; we resolved that conflict by holding that they were. (Id. at pp. 1113–1114.) In stating that the “remand order” was, given its nature, “an appealable final judgment” (id. at p. 1116), we were addressing a question of appealability, not a question of timeliness. The only issue before us was whether the trial court‘s ruling that only partially granted a writ petition was sufficiently final for purposes of permitting the appeal to
In this case, after the trial court filed an “order” denying Meinhardt‘s petition for writ of administrative mandate, the parties signed, and the trial court signed and entered, a “judgment,” which Meinhardt promptly served on the parties. If the earlier “order” was the “judgment” from which Meinhardt should have appealed, the subsequent entry of a judgment that explicitly stated, “the Court hereby enters Judgment,” was not merely a nullity or a mistake; it was potentially misleading. (See Davis, supra, 196 Cal.App.4th at p. 673 [“The city‘s filing of its ‘[Proposed] Judgment’ belies its assertion that nothing more needed to be done, for if nothing more were needed then why did the city file its proposed judgment?“]).
Finally, we note that under the Court of Appeal‘s analysis, parties would be unable to take a trial court at its word when it states that it is entering judgment. Instead, they will need to evaluate whether a prior minute order, statement of decision, order, or other ruling may later be found to be sufficiently final to constitute the judgment for purposes of commencing the running of the time to appeal. Ultimately, that rule would serve no apparent purpose and would encourage parties to file multiple protective appeals, thereby depriving the parties and the courts of the benefits of the one judgment rule. (See Morehart, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 738, fn. 4 [one final judgment rule is intended to avoid ” ‘piecemeal disposition and multiple appeals’ “].) Our resolution of the question better promotes clarity and uniformity, access to the courts for all parties — whether represented by counsel or not — and preserves the right to appellate review on the merits. We conclude that entry of — or service of notice of entry of — the September 25 Judgment started the time to appeal in this case and that Meinhardt‘s notice of appeal, filed October 15, 2020, was therefore timely. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal.
We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal and remand the matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.14
JENKINS, J.
We Concur:
CORRIGAN, J.
LIU, J.
KRUGER, J.
GROBAN, J.
EVANS, J.
SANCHEZ, J.*
* Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
See next page for addresses and telephone numbers for counsel who argued in Supreme Court.
Name of Opinion Meinhardt v. City of Sunnyvale
Procedural Posture (see XX below)
Original Appeal
Original Proceeding
Review Granted (published) XX 76 Cal.App.5th 43
Review Granted (unpublished)
Rehearing Granted
Opinion No. S274147
Date Filed: July 29, 2024
Court: Superior
County: Santa Clara
Judge: Peter H. Kirwan
Counsel:
Messing Adam & Jasmine, Gregg McLean Adam; Kirkland & Ellis, Michael Shipley and Nathaniel Haas for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Kimberly E. Leefatt, Jaclyn H. Prange; Chatten-Brown, Carstens & Minteer and Douglas P. Carstens for the Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club and Planning and Conservation League as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant.
Venskus & Associates, Sabrina D. Venskus, Jason R. Sanders; Law Offices of Brian Acree and Brian Acree for Ballona Wetlands Land Trust as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant.
Liebert Cassidy Whitmore, Brian P. Walter, Suzanne Solomon and David A. Urban for Defendant and Respondent.
No appearance for Real Party in Interest and Respondent.
Counsel who argued in Supreme Court (not intended for publication with opinion):
Michael Shipley
Kirkland & Ellis LLP
555 South Flower Street
Los Angeles, CA 90071
(213) 680-8222
David A. Urban
Liebert Cassidy Whitmore
6033 West Century Boulevard, 5th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90045
(310) 981-2045