Opinion
G053822
07-26-2018
DAWN L., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GABRIEL W., Defendant and Appellant.
Gabriel W., in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. 14P001278) OPINION Appeal from orders of the Superior Court of Orange County, James L. Waltz, Judge. Appeal dismissed. Gabriel W., in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Ostensibly, this is an appeal from a set of no less than seven sets of pretrial orders in a highly-contentious visitation exchange case. However, we have no jurisdiction to review any of those orders and so must dismiss this appeal. (See Doe v. United States Swimming, Inc. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1424, 1432 [appellate court has no jurisdiction or authority to review nonappealable order].)
The notice of appeal simply lists orders filed on the following dates as those appealed from: April 10, 2015; April 14, 2015; July 10, 2015; July 15, 2015; October 13, 2015; December 7, 2015; and March 25, 2016.
The deadlines for filing a notice of appeal are set forth in rule 8.104 of the California Rules of Court. These rules provide in pertinent part: "(a) . . . Unless a statute or rules 8.108, 8.702, or 8.712 provide otherwise, a notice of appeal must be filed on or before the earliest of: [¶] (1)(A) 60 days after the superior court clerk serves on the party filing the notice of appeal a document entitled 'Notice of Entry' of judgment or a filed-endorsed copy of the judgment, showing the date either was served; [¶] (B) 60 days after the party filing the notice of appeal serves or is served by a party with a document entitled 'Notice of Entry' of judgment or a filed-endorsed copy of the judgment, accompanied by proof of service; or [¶] (C) 180 days after entry of judgment." (Italics added.)
The most recent of the orders from which Gabriel appeals here is dated March 25, 2016. This order was itself embodied in a formal "Findings and Order After Hearing" filed (as shown by the file stamp) March 25, 2016, and was served on Gabriel on April 12, 2016. July 21, 2016, the day on which Gabriel filed his appeal, is more than 60 days (indeed more than 90 days) from April 12, 2016. Gabriel missed his deadline for filing and therefore we have no choice but to dismiss his appeal from the March 25, 2016 order.
Appellant prefers to be called Gabriel instead of Lucas, and we oblige. --------
The next most recent order listed is December 7, 2015. We do not find, as we did with the March 25, 2016 order, a formal findings and order, or any indication the clerk served a notice of it, so here the 180-day deadline in rule 8.104(1)(C) applies. Since a date in July 2016 is more than 180 days after a date in early December 2015, the order is again nonappealable because the notice of appeal was filed too late. The same is necessarily true for the earlier orders listed in Gabriel's notice of appeal, regardless of whether copies were served on Gabriel or not. All were readily made 180 days or more prior to the notice of appeal.
The orders of July 15, 2015 and August 21, 2015 are considered on their merits in the earlier companion appeal to this one, G052721. This appeal, G053822, however, must be dismissed. We have no choice. (In re Marriage of Eben-King & King (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 92, 109 ["We therefore have no jurisdiction to review the merits of the judgment."].)
Because Dawn has not filed a respondent's brief, she will not be given any costs on appeal. Gabriel will bear his own.
BEDSWORTH, ACTING P. J. WE CONCUR: MOORE, J. ARONSON, J.