Opinion
A146169 A147332
10-10-2018
In re the Marriage of JENNIFER SUN and TOM LAN. JENNIFER SUN, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TOM LAN, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. HF14713157) MEMORANDUM OPINION
We resolve these appeals by memorandum opinion pursuant to California Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1. --------
Appellant Tom Lan, appearing in propria persona in this dissolution proceeding, pursues two appeals from orders entered, respectively, August 24, 2015 and December 3, 2015. We consolidated the appeals for purposes of oral argument and decision.
Both parties are unrepresented. Respondent Jennifer Sun appeared in propria persona in the family court proceedings from which these appeals are taken, but despite notice of default in filing a responding brief on appeal , she failed to file any such brief.
The notices of appeal in each of the appeals were filed, respectively, on September 4, 2015, and December 29, 2015, prior to the entry of final judgment of dissolution on January 17, 2017. Although we judicially notice the date of entry of final judgment (see In re Marriage of Sun & Lan (Oct. 10, 2018, A150069, A150159, at p. 2 [nonpub. mem. opn.]), the record before us does not include the judgment.
By these two appeals, appellant seeks review of an interim child custody order (December 3, 2015) and a judgment after trial (August 24, 2015) reserving the issue of child support. Because appellant failed to await the entry of final judgment before appealing, failed to notice an appeal from the final judgment, failed to include the final judgment in the record, and failed to obtain certification from the trial court for an interlocutory appeal, we dismiss the appeals as having been brought to challenge interim orders which are not appealable. (Code Civ. Proc., § 904.1; Kinoshita v. Horio (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 959, 962 963; Lester v. Lennane (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 536, 560.)
While appellant's unrepresented status no doubt explains these deficiencies, it does not excuse them. (Burnete v. La Casa Dana Apartments (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1262, 1267) [" ' "the in propria persona litigant is held to the same restrictive rules of procedure as an attorney" ' "].) Appellant's self-represented status does not exempt him from the rules of appellate procedure or relieve him of his burden on appeal. Those representing themselves are afforded no additional leniency or immunity from the rules of appellate procedure simply because of their propria persona status. (See Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246-1247.
DISPOSITION
These appeals are dismissed.
/s/_________
Streeter, Acting P.J. We concur: /s/_________
Reardon, J. /s/_________
Lee, J.