Emmerson v. Regis CA3

Filed 5/15/14 Emmerson v. Regis CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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) ----

CHRISTINE M. EMMERSON,

Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and C072320 Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 06AS02756) v.

TONY D. REGIS,

Defendant, Cross-complainant and Respondent.

Christine M. Emmerson appeals from an order denying her motion to vacate a judgment entered in favor of respondent Tony D. Regis. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Emmerson filed an untimely notice of appeal. BACKGROUND Emmerson and Regis were never married but share a child in common. On March 24, 2009, the trial court entered a judgment that, among other things, awarded $450,000 to Regis for the loss of his relationship with his child due to Emmerson’s abduction of their daughter and subsequent eight-year period of withholding contact

1

between their daughter and Regis. On April 3, 2009, notice of entry of judgment was served. On August 1, 2009, rather than appealing the judgment, Emmerson declared bankruptcy. On June 28, 2011, the bankruptcy court determined the $450,000 award to Regis to be nondischargeable. On May 31, 2012, this court summarily denied Emmerson’s petition for writ of mandate. (Emmerson v. Superior Court (C071035, May 31, 2012) [nonpub. order].) On June 21, 2012, Emmerson filed a motion to vacate the judgment. On August 27, 2012, the trial court denied the motion to vacate the judgment. On October 11, 2012, Emmerson appealed the order denying her motion to vacate. EMMERSON’S NOTICE OF APPEAL WAS NOT TIMELY FILED As the California Supreme Court has explained, “The time for appealing a judgment is jurisdictional; once the deadline expires, the appellate court has no power to entertain the appeal.” (Van Beurden Ins. Servs., Inc. v. Customized Worldwide Weather Ins. Agency, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 51, 56.) The purpose of this requirement is to promote the finality of judgments by impelling the losing party to take an appeal expeditiously or not at all. (In re Chavez (2003) 30 Cal.4th 643, 650.) Here, the deadline to file the notice of appeal was provided by California Rules of Court, rule 8.108(c),1 which provides: “Motion to vacate judgment [¶] If, within the time prescribed by rule 8.104 to appeal from the judgment, any party serves and files a valid notice of intention to move-- or a valid motion--to vacate the judgment, the time to appeal from the judgment is extended for all parties until the earliest of: