In Meinhardt v. City of Sunnyvale, the Supreme Court today endorses the need for bright line rules about the time to appeal and it then establishes one for administrative mandate proceedings.
The court’s unanimous opinion by Justice Martin Jenkins holds, “the time to appeal in administrative mandate proceedings starts to run with entry of ‘judgment’ or service of notice of entry of ‘judgment,’ rather than with the filing of, or service of notice of the filing of, an ‘order,’ minute order, or other ruling.” Even an “ ‘order’ that disposes of all issues in the case and contemplates no further action” doesn’t count. That kind of order might be considered a judgment “in the context of preserving the right to appeal,” but not “for the purpose of dismissing an appeal as untimely,” the court concludes.
Quoting court rules and its own case law, the court says about appeal deadlines, “This time limit is jurisdictional: ‘no court may extend the time to file a notice of appeal’ [citation], and relief cannot be conferred by stipulation, waiver, or estoppel [citation]. ‘If a notice of appeal is filed late, the reviewing court must dismiss the appeal.’ [Citation]” That principle is not always as ironclad as the court makes it sound, however. But, practitioners still shouldn’t gamble on being a test case, like the Meinhardt appellant did.
The court reverses the Fourth District, Division One, Court of Appeal published opinion. (Before joining the Supreme Court, now-Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero concurred in that opinion and is recused from today’s decision.) It disapproves the Second District, Division Three, decision in Laraway v. Pasadena Unified School Dist. (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 579 and the Fourth District, Division One, decision in City of Calexico v. Bergeson (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 180. The Supreme Court denied review in Laraway. (See: Disapprovals of review-denied opinions show the Supreme Court is not an error-correction court.) There was no petition for review in Bergeson. The court also disapproves language in the First District, Division Two, opinion in Valero Refining Company – California v. Bay Area Air Quality Management Dist. Hearing Bd. (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 618 and in the Third District opinion in Natomas Unified School Dist. v. Sacramento County Bd. of Education (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 1013.
More about the Meinhardt case here.