Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
Marin County Super. Ct. No. CV043747
Kline, P.J.
INTRODUCTION
Defendants and respondents Philip Hassrick, Barbara Wagner, Lost Frontiers, LLC, and Lost Frontiers, Inc. move to dismiss plaintiff Llyal Gordon’s appeal as untimely filed. Dismissal is supported by the record. Plaintiff was served with notice of entry of judgment dismissing his complaint on September 28, 2007, and filed his notice of appeal from the dismissal on November 18, 2008, more than a year later. The appeal was untimely under California Rules of Court, rule 8.104(a), requiring that the appeal must be filed on or before 60 days after the service of the notice of entry of judgment, accompanied by proof of service. Consequently, we are without jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and shall grant the motion and dismiss the appeal.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff sued defendants for breach of oral contract, negligence, fraud and unfair business practices in connection with travel services organized by Lost Frontiers, LLC for plaintiff’s tour through Algeria and Niger in 2004. On July 23, 2007, the court granted terminating sanctions following plaintiff’s failure on multiple separate occasions to cooperate in giving his deposition and his violation of two court orders compelling his deposition. The court found that plaintiff had repeatedly failed to comply with his discovery obligations and had misused the discovery process. Judgment was entered against plaintiff on August 6, 2007. Defendants served notice of entry of judgment on plaintiff and on plaintiff’s former attorney on September 28, 2007.
On November 18, 2008, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from the August 6, 2007 judgment.
DISCUSSION
Service of the notice of entry of judgment upon plaintiff on September 28, 2007, triggered the 60-day deadline for filing an appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.104; Eisenberg et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Appeals and Writs (The Rutter Group 2008) ¶ 3:11, p. 3-8.) Consequently, plaintiff had 60 days within which to file a timely appeal. His appeal filed on November 18, 2008 was too late.
Plaintiff, arguing in propria persona, does not dispute the facts recited above or argue that his appeal was timely filed under California law. Rather, he maintains that the judgment is void and that a void judgment may be appealed at any time. He provides no credible explanation of how his judgment might be void, but summarily lists the allegedly wrongful acts of the defendants and others. He further contends that his claims implicate the California and United States Constitutions and that it is the court’s “constitutional duty to take whatever action necessary to sustain [the] integrity” of such constitutional law, “inferior law [presumably that relating to the timely filing of appeals] notwithstanding.” This claim is unavailing.
As stated in the leading California appellate law treatise: “Notices of appeal . . . must be filed within the time periods established by [California Rules of Court, rules] 8.104 and 8.108. These deadlines are jurisdictional: i.e., timely filing is an absolute prerequisite to the appellate court’s power to entertain the appeal. [Citations.]” (Eisenberg et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Appeals and Writs, supra, ¶ 3:4, p. 3-1, citing, among others Van Beurden Ins. Services, Inc. v. Customized Worldwide Weather Ins. Agency, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 51, 56.) We are without jurisdiction to entertain this untimely appeal.
DISPOSITION
We hereby dismiss this appeal as untimely. Defendants shall recover their costs in connection with this motion to dismiss.
We concur: Lambden, J., Richman, J.