Nave

Nave v. Taggart

Bad Law
1995 Cal. App. LEXIS 427·34 Cal. App. 4th 1173·40 Cal. Rptr. 2d 714·95 Daily Journal DAR 5965·95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3502
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 9, 1995F019626California1,736 words

Opinion

Opinion

Buckley, J.

Procedural History

For purposes of the narrow issue presented on appeal, the genesis of this case began with the trial court’s order granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment, which order directed defendants to prepare “a formal order.” On February 22, 1993, plaintiff filed and noticed a motion for reconsideration. On February 24, the formal order granting summary judgment was filed, and on February 25, judgment upon the order of summary judgment was entered. On March 4, 1993, defendants mailed notice of entry of judgment and order. Plaintiff’s notice of appeal was not filed until May 7, 1993; it specified an appeal from “the Court’s ruling as to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.”

Thereafter, in this court, respondents (defendants below) filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as being untimely filed. Appellant opposed the motion, asserting that the appeal period had been “tolled” by his filed motion for reconsideration which had never received a ruling. He contends that he could not appeal during “this time period” and that any 60-day period should be tolled during this “period of confusion.”

Discussion

We begin our discussion by noting that numerous cases…

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.