Hughey

Hughey v. City of Hayward

Good Law
1994 Cal. App. LEXIS 341·24 Cal. App. 4th 206·30 Cal. Rptr. 2d 678·94 Daily Journal DAR 5238·94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2744
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 18, 1994A064439California1,319 words

Opinion

Opinion

On a motion to dismiss this appeal, we point out an inconsistency between rule 2(b) and rule 391 of the California Rules of Court which creates uncertainty as to the date of entry of an appealable order, and we urge the Judicial Council to address the problem.

This wrongful death action was submitted to judicial arbitration, which resulted in denial of plaintiff’s claim. Plaintiff did not request a trial de novo, and judgment was entered on the arbitrator’s ruling. The judgment is nonappealable. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1141.23.)

Plaintiff moved unsuccessfully to vacate the judgment. A minute order dated October 27, 1993, stated that the motion was denied and the parties “are so notified by a copy of this minute order via U.S. Mail.” The minute order was not file-stamped.

The order denying the motion to vacate is appealable. (Cabrera v. Plager (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 606, 609-610 [ 241 Cal.Rptr. 731 ].) Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on January 3, 1994. The notice did not, however, specify the order denying the motion to vacate, but instead specified a subsequent order denying a motion for reconsideration. There is a split of authority as to whether an order denying…

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.