Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Ct. No. 30-2010-00377217, David T. McEachen, Judge.
Hon Lau, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.
No appearance for Defendants and Respondents.
OPINION
FYBEL, J.
Introduction
Plaintiff Hon Lau appeals from an unsigned minute order in which the trial court dismissed without prejudice the “entire action” Lau filed against defendants Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr., former Governors Gray Davis, Pete Wilson, George Deukmejian, and Arnold Schwarzenegger, the California National Guard, and the “military” (collectively, defendants).
We dismiss Lau’s appeal. Neither the appellate record nor the trial court file contains an appealable order that meets the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 581d, or a final judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1, subdivision (a)(1). We therefore lack jurisdiction to entertain Lau’s appeal.
Background
In May 2010, Lau filed a complaint asserting causes of action for “[g]eneral [n]egligence” and “[i]ntentional [t]ort” against defendants. The wrongful conduct underlying Lau’s claims is alleged in the complaint (in full and verbatim) as follows: “Defendants have been violated Lau’s civil rights of due process, free speech, freedom of association, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment of these causes of actions. The defendants Gray Davis et al had been harrased plaintiff since 1974 by stalked/followed Lau everywhere 24 hours a day. Either at residence and at work place. And stole Lau’s in and out mails, and tapped Lau’s telephone system, and broken in Lau’s automobile and house, took all Lau’s personal properties, and accused and sentenced Lau 50 years to life in prison. Lau is totally innocence to the crime. [¶] The defendants were violate Lau’s civil rights, and Calif. and U.S. Constituion rights. [¶] The plaintiff pray this court grant an award on monetary compensation of $2,500,000—from the defendants, Gray Davis et al wrongful acts, and punish the evil ones. Reversing the sentencing. [¶] This irreparable wrong doing cannot be able to pay back Lau’s lost all his family members, relatives, friends, for the last 40 years suffering.”
In a minute order, the trial court “order[ed] the entire action dismissed without prejudice.” Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal.
The record suggests the court’s dismissal order was in response to an order to show cause regarding dismissal the court had issued. It does not otherwise state the basis for the dismissal of the action.
Discussion
“A reviewing court has jurisdiction over a direct appeal only when there is (1) an appealable order or (2) an appealable judgment.” (Griset v. Fair Political Practices Com. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 688, 696.) A dismissal order is appealable as a final judgment when the order complies with Code of Civil Procedure section 581d, which provides in part that “[a]ll dismissals ordered by the court shall be in the form of a written order signed by the court and filed in the action and those orders when so filed shall constitute judgments and be effective for all purposes, and the clerk shall note those judgments in the register of actions in the case.”
Here, the clerk’s transcript contains an unsigned minute order which states the action is dismissed without prejudice; it does not contain a signed order or judgment. Pursuant to Evidence Code sections 459, subdivision (a) and 452, subdivision (d), on our own motion, we take judicial notice of the Orange County Superior Court file (case No. 30 2010 00377217) in this case. Our review of the trial court’s file confirms the absence of a signed order dismissing the action or a judgment.
“A minute order granting a motion to dismiss is ‘“ineffectual and nonappealable; no appeal can be taken except from the order signed and filed.”’” (Miranda v. 21st Century Ins. Co. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 913, 919, fn. 5; see Munoz v. Florentine Gardens (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1730, 1731 [unsigned minute order is not appealable].) An appeal taken from a nonappealable order, therefore, must be dismissed because the appellate court is without jurisdiction to entertain it. (Munoz v. Florentine Gardens, supra, at p. 1732.)
As there is no appealable order or judgment in this case, we must dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Disposition
The appeal is dismissed.
WE CONCUR: ARONSON, ACTING P. J., IKOLA, J.