MAIDES

MAIDES v. Ralphs Grocery Co.

Good Law
2000 Cal. App. LEXIS 76·2000 Daily Journal DAR 1443·77 Cal. App. 4th 1363·92 Cal. Rptr. 2d 542·2000 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1012
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 4, 2000D031180California2,248 words

Opinion

Opinion

Work, J.

Michelle Y. Maides and Scott D. Maides appeal a summary judgment in favor of Ralphs Grocery Company. As a matter of first impression in this case where the Maideses filed a notice of intent to move to vacate before judgment was entered, we hold the 60-day period within which an appeal must ordinarily be brought (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2(a)) cannot be shortened by the provisions in rule 3(b), which pertain to time limits for filing appeals after filing such notices. We conclude the sole purpose of rule 3(b) is to extend appeal time to accommodate motions to vacate a judgment. Accordingly, the Maideses’ appeal brought within 60 days of the service of the notice of judgment is timely. We affirm the judgment, however, because the trial court correctly found the Maideses were collaterally estopped from relitigating sex discrimination issues decided against them in federal court.

I

Factual and Procedural Background

Michelle began working for Ralphs in 1987. She was a member of the United Food & Commercial Workers International Union, AFL-CIO-CIC/ Local 135 (Union). The collective bargaining agreement “provided that employees who had been employed by Ralphs for one year 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.