Marriage of Peralta and Cardenas
Filed 10/27/06 Marriage of Peralta and Cardenas CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
| In re the Marriage of PILAR M. PERALTA and CARLOS E. CARDENAS. | |
| PILAR M. PERALTA, Respondent, v. CARLOS E. CARDENAS, Appellant. | D043761 (Super. Ct. No. D479387) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Thomas C. Hendrix, Judge. Dismissed.
On February 9, 2004, Carlos Cardenas filed a notice of appeal from the January 12, 2004 default judgment dissolving his marriage to Pilar M. Peralta. According to the notice of appeal, the trial court found Cardenas in default after he failed to submit an application for waiver of court fees and costs. Attached as an exhibit to the notice of appeal was his proposed response to the dissolution petition.
On February 18, 2004, the clerk's office of this court sent Cardenas (1) a notice that his appeal would be dismissed unless he paid the filing fee or filed a waiver application within 15 days and (2) a letter stating he must file a civil case information statement (CCIS) and copy of the judgment in 10 days. Enclosed with the letter were a CCIS form and a summary of basic appellate procedures. On February 25, the superior court sent Cardenas a notice of default for failure to file a designation of record. On March 10, this court dismissed the appeal for failure to pay the filing fee. On March 11, Cardenas filed a notice designating record on appeal and an application for fee waiver. The notice specified he elected to proceed with an appendix in lieu of a clerk's transcript and no reporter's transcript. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.1.)[1] On March 17, the superior court granted the fee waiver. On March 19, this court vacated the dismissal.
On March 30, 2004, the clerk's office of this court sent Cardenas a letter stating he was in default for failure to file a CCIS and copy of the judgment, and if he did not file a CCIS within 15 days, the court might impose monetary sanctions or dismiss the appeal. On April 6, the clerk's office sent Cardenas a letter stating his opening brief and appendix were due within 70 days of the March 11 filing of the notice of election. On April 27, this court dismissed the appeal for failure to file a CCIS and copy of the judgment. On May 18, Cardenas filed a motion to reinstate appeal. On May 27, this court granted the motion, stating the CCIS attached to the motion was deemed filed and the opening brief and appendix were due within 30 days.
On July 8, 2004, Cardenas filed his opening brief, but no appendix. On August 13, the clerk's office of this court sent Peralta a notice that if she did not file her brief in 15 days, the appeal would be submitted for decision on the record and Cardenas's opening brief, unless she demonstrated good cause for relief from default. (Rule 17(a)(2).) There was no further action until September 12, 2006. On that date, this court vacated the rule 17 notice issued on August 13, 2004, and notified Cardenas that if he did not file an accurate and proper appendix within 30 days, the court might impose monetary or other sanctions (rule 5.1(g)) and dismiss the appeal (In re Marriage of Green (1984) 159 Cal.App.3d 1163).
The appendix was due on October 12, 2006. It has not been filed. We therefore dismiss the appeal. (In re Marriage of Green, supra, 159 Cal.App.3d at p. 1163.)
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
McCONNELL, P. J.
WE CONCUR:
HUFFMAN, J.
HALLER, J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Poway Property line Lawyers.
[1] All rule references are to the California Rules of Court.
