Hurd v. Alexander
Filed 4/30/07 Hurd v. Alexander CA1/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
LILLIE HURD, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. RALPH ALEXANDER et al., Defendants and Respondents. | A114785 (Solano County Super. Ct. No. FCS014147) |
This is plaintiff Lillie Hurds second appeal from a defense judgment after jury trial in her Marvin action (Marvin v. Marvin (1976) 18 Cal.3d 660) against her former cohabitant, defendant Ralph Alexander. We dismissed the first appeal because plaintiffs notice of appeal was untimely. We dismiss the second appeal for the same reason because we do not have jurisdiction due to an untimely appeal of the issues raised.
In the first appeal, Hurd v. Alexander et al. (Nov. 10, 2005, A108380 [nonpub. opn.]), plaintiff purported to appeal from the judgment and attack it on its merits. We noted that plaintiffs notice of appeal was untimely and that the time period for a timely notice was not restarted by an amendment to the judgment which only added a one-sentence cost award to defendant. Since plaintiff challenged the judgment itself, and not the subsequent cost award, we dismissed the appeal as untimely.
After our remittitur issued, the trial court made a second minor amendment to the judgment to award defendant costs on appeal.
Now, plaintiff again seeks to challenge the merits of the judgment. But her notice of appeal is still untimely. For the same reasons we expressed in the first appeal, the amendment of the judgment for the limited purpose of adding a cost award does not trigger a new period for a timely appeal from the judgment.
We note also that plaintiff has failed to provide this court with a record on appeal, and that her opening and reply briefs have failed to provide citations to the record of proceedings before the trial court.
Plaintiff does not challenge the award of costs on appeal, and cannot appeal issues raised in her first appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.
______________________
Marchiano, P.J.
We concur:
______________________
Swager, J.
______________________
Margulies, J.
Publication Courtesy of California attorney directory.
Analysis and review provided by Oceanside Property line Lawyers.
