Kim v. Cal. State Personnel Bd. CA3

Filed 8/27/13 Kim v. Cal. State Personnel Bd. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

RICHARD Y. KIM, C069305

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 34201080000421CUWMGDS) v.

CALIFORNIA STATE PERSONNEL BOARD,

Defendant and Respondent;

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION,

Real Party in Interest and Respondent.

During his probationary period, plaintiff Richard Y. Kim was rejected from his position as a dentist employed by real party in interest Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (Department) at Kern Valley State Prison, a maximum security prison. The rejection was upheld by defendant State Personnel Board (Board).

1

Plaintiff filed a petition for rehearing with the Board, which was denied. Next, plaintiff filed a petition for writ of administrative mandate with the trial court seeking a peremptory writ ordering the Board to reverse its decision and reinstate him to his position with full back pay and benefits. The trial court denied plaintiff’s writ petition, as well as his motion for new trial and renewed motion for new trial that followed. Plaintiff appeals the denial of his writ petition, his motion for new trial, and his renewed motion for new trial. As we will explain, because plaintiff’s notice of appeal was not timely filed, we must dismiss the appeal.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On February 8, 2011, the trial court issued an order denying plaintiff’s writ petition. The order directs counsel for real party in interest “to prepare a formal judgment consistent with this ruling, submit it to opposing counsel for approval as to form; and thereafter submit it to the Court for signature and entry of judgment.” On February 18, 2011, plaintiff filed a motion for new trial. On April 14, 2011, the trial court issued a tentative ruling denying the motion. The tentative ruling included the following language: “In the event that this tentative ruling becomes the final ruling of the Court, this minute order shall be effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to [California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312] or further notice shall be required.” On April 15, 2011, the court heard argument on the tentative ruling and took the matter under submission. On April 25, 2011, the court issued an order affirming its tentative ruling denying plaintiff’s motion for new trial. On May 4, 2011, plaintiff filed a renewed motion for new trial. On June 30, 2011, the court issued its tentative ruling denying plaintiff’s renewed motion for new trial. The tentative ruling included the following language: “In the event