Branner

Branner v. Regents of University of California

Bad Law
175 Cal. App. 4th 1043·2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 1142·96 Cal. Rptr. 3d 690·106 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1450
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 14, 2009C061476California2,155 words

Opinion

Opinion

Defendants The Regents of the University of California (the Regents) and Barbara Horwitz have moved to dismiss the appeal of plaintiff George R. Branner on the ground that Branner’s notice of appeal was not timely filed. Branner opposes the motion on the ground that his unsuccessful motion for reconsideration, filed in the trial court, extended his time to appeal. For reasons that follow, we shall dismiss the appeal.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Branner filed a complaint against the Regents and Horwitz, alleging various causes of action premised on allegations of race and age discrimination. On December 17, 2008, the superior court filed an order granting in part and denying in part defendants’ special motion to strike the complaint, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. That order was immediately appealable. (§§ 425.16, subd. (i), 904.1, subd. (a)(13).) On December 22, 2008, defendants served Branner by mail with notice of entry of the December 17, 2008, order.

On January 6, 2009, Branner filed a motion to reconsider the December 17, 2008, order. The Regents opposed the motion on several grounds, including that the motion was not supported by an affidavit or…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.