Rasooly v. Rasooly CA1/1

Filed 9/30/13 Rasooly v. Rasooly CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

LINDA RASOOLY, Respondent, A136075 v. REUVEN RASOOLY, (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. F0901471) Appellant; CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES, Intervener and Respondent.

This appeal arises from a child support dispute involving appellant Reuven Rasooly (Reuven), his former spouse respondent Linda Rasooly (Linda),1 and intervener and respondent Contra Costa County Department of Child Support Services (Department). The trial court ordered that an Israeli court order requiring Reuven to pay child support to Linda be registered for enforcement in California. The court later denied Reuven‟s motion to vacate that decision. Reuven appealed both the decision registering the Israeli court order and the denial of the motion to vacate. We dismiss as untimely Reuven‟s appeal of the trial court‟s decision ordering registration of the Israeli order, and we affirm the trial court‟s denial of the motion to vacate.

1 We refer to the parties by their first names for purposes of clarity and not out of disrespect. (Rubenstein v. Rubenstein (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1131, 1136, fn. 1.)

1

I. BACKGROUND On March 9, 2012, the trial court issued a decision ordering that a 2001 Israeli court order requiring Reuven to pay child support to Linda be registered for enforcement in California pursuant to Family Code section 4951. The court ruled the Israeli support order is enforceable in the same manner as a California court support order. The trial court clerk mailed the decision to the parties on March 9, 2012. The trial court entered a statement of registration of the Israeli support order on March 12, 2012, and the clerk mailed the statement to the parties the same day. On March 23, 2012, Reuven filed a motion to vacate the March 9, 2012 decision pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 663.2 Reuven filed a supplemental motion to vacate on April 19, 2012. After a hearing on May 25, 2012, the trial court issued an order denying the motion to vacate on July 11, 2012. The court clerk mailed that order to the parties on July 11, 2012. On July 23, 2012, Reuven filed a notice of appeal from the March 9, 2012 decision and the July 11, 2012 order denying the motion to vacate. II. DISCUSSION A. Reuven’s Appeal of the March 9, 2012 Decision is Untimely Department moved to dismiss Reuven‟s appeal of the March 9, 2012 decision as untimely. We took the motion under submission to be decided with the merits of the appeal. We now grant the motion and dismiss Reuven‟s appeal of the March 9, 2012 decision. Rule 8.104(a)(1) of the California Rules of Court3 states: “Unless a statute or rule 8.108 provides otherwise, a notice of appeal must be filed on or before the earliest of: [¶] (A) 60 days after the superior court clerk serves on the party filing the notice of appeal a document entitled „Notice of Entry‟ of judgment or a file-stamped copy of the judgment, showing the date either was served; [¶] (B) 60 days after the party filing the 2 All statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise stated. 3 All rule references are to the California Rules of Court.