20th Century Insurance v. Superior Court

Good Law
1994 Cal. App. LEXIS 958·28 Cal. App. 4th 666·33 Cal. Rptr. 2d 674·94 Daily Journal DAR 13337·94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7333
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 21, 1994B085339California1,975 words

Opinion

Opinion

Epstein, J.

We granted an alternative writ of mandate in this case to decide a single issue: the validity of the policy of the Los Angeles Superior Court Appellate Department that the time to file a notice of appeal runs from the date the clerk mails a notice of ruling. We conclude the policy is invalid because it conflicts with California Rules of Court, rule 122, which governs the subject. Under that provision, the 30-day time period runs from a clerk’s notice of entry of an appealable order. Relying on its policy, the appellate department dismissed the petitioners’ appeal in this case. We shall direct the respondent court to set aside that order and proceed with the appeal.

Factual and Procedural Summary

We take the facts and procedural history of the case from court documents, as set out in the appendix to the petition for extraordinary relief.

20th Century Insurance Company, the principal petitioner in this matter, insured Daniel Silva Arevalo, the defendant in the underlying case and one of the real parties in this writ review. The underlying case arises out of an alleged motor vehicle personal injury accident that occurred on December 5, 1990. The plaintiffs in that action,…

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.