Doe v. Foe
Filed 4/21/06 Doe v. Foe CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| JANE DOE et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. JOHN FOE, Defendant and Respondent. | H028010 (Santa Clara County Super.Ct.No. CV807732) |
This is an appeal by plaintiffs from a judgment after a jury trial in which the jury returned their verdict for the defendant. After judgment was entered, and notice of its entry served, plaintiffs filed a valid notice of intention to move for new trial and then proceeded to file the appropriate supporting papers. The trial court denied the motion on the date of the hearing by written order signed that day. The clerk then filed and served the order also on that same day. This series of events triggered an extension of time within which to file a notice of appeal from the judgment under rule 3(a)(1) of the California Rules of Court[1] until 30 days after the clerk served the order denying plaintiffs' motion for new trial. In this case, the notice of appeal was filed three days later than this extended period, rendering the appeal untimely and depriving this court of appellate jurisdiction. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
BACKGROUND
This is an action for damages filed against defendant John Foe by plaintiffs Jane Doe, Ann Doe, Anthony Doe, Baby Doe, by and through his guardian ad litem, Ann Doe, and Karen Roe. The action arises out of the alleged sexual abuse of plaintiffs by defendant. The case was tried to a jury, resulting in a defense verdict. Judgment was entered on the verdict on June 29, 2004. Notice of entry of judgment was served by mail (by defendant through counsel) with proof of service on July 2, 2004. On July 14, 2004, plaintiffs timely filed their notice of intention to move for new trial under Code of Civil Procedure section 657. The motion was later supported by a memorandum of points and authorities and other papers. Defendant filed opposition to the motion, which was heard by the trial court on August 27, 2004. At the end of the hearing, the court announced its decision to deny the motion from the bench, the judge stating the court's intention to prepare its own written order, which would â€
