Kaur v. Broadbase (2018)
November 20, 2018
Horvitz & Levy LLP successfully moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ appeal before briefing commenced, using our expertise in appellate procedure to protect a summary judgment in our client’s favor at minimal cost.
Plaintiffs allegedly had their vehicle serviced at the Jiffy Lube before they were involved in a rollover accident. They sued the Jiffy Lube Franchise, which successfully obtained summary judgment. The trial court denied plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial and the plaintiffs attempted to appeal from that ruling.
Horvitz & Levy was retained to represent the Jiffy Lube Franchise on appeal. We moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ appeal as jurisdictionally defective both because it was untimely and because it was from a nonappealable order denying a motion for new trial. The order from which plaintiffs purported to appeal was a nullity because the trial court had already denied the motion in a previous. Plaintiffs’ notice of appeal was therefore filed more than 30 days after their motion for new trial was denied, as well as more than 60 days after the defendant had served notice of entry of judgment. Accordingly, the California Court of Appeal (Third Appellate District) concluded that even if it chose to exercise its discretion to treat the notice of appeal as having been taken from the judgment rather than the (nonappealable) order denying the new trial, the appeal was untimely by at least two weeks.