Opinion
G056286
12-12-2019
BEKIR BESEN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SUNCOAST NOVA LLC, as Trustee, etc., et al., Defendant and Respondent.
Bekir Besen in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Zfaty | Burns, Issaac R. Zfaty, Ryan N. Burns, and Sam B. Maralan; Simis Law Group and Micole Elliot Simis for Defendant and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2016-00883938) OPINION Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Deborah C. Servino, Judge. Dismissed. Bekir Besen in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Zfaty | Burns, Issaac R. Zfaty, Ryan N. Burns, and Sam B. Maralan; Simis Law Group and Micole Elliot Simis for Defendant and Respondent.
* * *
This appeal is from a judgment in favor of a defaulted defendant, Suncoast Nova, LLC, as trustee for Rue Chateau Royal Trust #5. Plaintiff Bekir Besen alleged that defendant committed fraud in foreclosing on his home. He sought to set aside the foreclosing trustee's sale of his home, damages for fraud, and declaratory and injunctive relief. Defendant did not answer the complaint; its default was entered. When plaintiff applied for entry of a default judgment, however, the court found that the fraud-related causes of action were barred by the statute of limitations, and that plaintiff had failed to state a claim for setting aside the trustee's sale of his home. Judgment for defendant was entered on March 6, 2018, and served on plaintiff on March, 8, 2018.
On March 15, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied on May 4, 2018.
Plaintiff filed his notice of appeal on May 9, 2018. The appeal is untimely, and thus we must dismiss it.
DISCUSSION
"The time for appealing a judgment is jurisdictional; once the deadline expires, the appellate court has no power to entertain the appeal." (Van Beurden Ins. Services, Inc. v. Customized Worldwide Weather Ins. Agency, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 51, 56.) We are required to dismiss an untimely appeal. (Hollister Convalescent Hosp., Inc. v. Rico (1975) 15 Cal.3d 660, 674.)
California Rules of Court, rule 8.104, provides three different deadlines for filing a notice of appeal, depending on what procedures were (or were not) invoked after the judgment. The relevant deadline here is "60 days after the superior court clerk serves on the party filing the notice of appeal a . . . filed-endorsed copy of the judgment." (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.104(a)(1)(A).) That occurred on March 8, 2018. Sixty days later fell on Monday, May 7, 2018. Plaintiff filed his notice of appeal on May 9, 2018. It was untimely.
Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration did not extend the deadline to file the appeal. Under California Rules of Court, rule 8.108(e), the service of a valid motion for reconsideration extends the time to appeal by at least 30 days. However, the trial court had no authority to entertain a motion for reconsideration once judgment had been entered, and thus it was not a valid motion that extended the deadline. "That is because after entry of judgment, a trial court has no further power to rule on a motion for reconsideration. 'A court may reconsider its order granting or denying a motion and may even reconsider or alter its judgment so long as judgment has not yet been entered. Once judgment has been entered, however, the court may not reconsider it and loses its unrestricted power to change the judgment. It may correct judicial error only through certain limited procedures such as motions for new trial and motions to vacate the judgment.'" (Ramon v. Aerospace Corp. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1233, 1236 [holding that a motion for reconsideration after judgment was entered did not extend the time to file a notice of appeal].)
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed. Defendant shall recover its costs incurred on appeal. Plaintiff's motion to strike defendant's brief is denied.
Plaintiff filed the motion on the ground that defendant defaulted in the trial court, and thus should not be entitled to take any action here. That is not the law. A defaulting defendant may appeal from a default judgment, though the issues that may be raised are circumscribed as a result of having admitted all properly pleaded facts. (Aheroni v. Maxwell (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 284, 294 ["A defendant may appeal from a default judgment taken against him"]; 9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (5th ed. 2008) Appeal, § 361, p. 416.) If a defendant can appeal notwithstanding a default, it follows that the default poses no jurisdictional hurdle to responding on appeal.
IKOLA, J. WE CONCUR: O'LEARY, P. J. ARONSON, J.