Dupont v. Glasgow CA3

Filed 12/2/15 Dupont v. Glasgow CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Yuba) ----

DONALD F. DUPONT, JR., et al., C075034

Plaintiffs and Respondents, (Super. Ct. No. CVCV10-0000146) v.

J. C. GLASGOW et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

Defendants J. C. Glasgow and Janet G. Glasgow, proceeding pro se, purport to appeal from (1) an order sustaining a demurrer to their cross-complaint without leave to amend, and (2) judgment following a bench trial in favor of plaintiffs Donald F. DuPont, Jr., Judith A. DuPont, and Bernard Peacock for declaratory relief, quiet title, and reformation of legal instruments. Plaintiffs did not file a respondents’ brief or otherwise respond to defendants’ appeal. As we shall explain, none of the contentions set forth in defendants’ opening brief are properly before us. Accordingly, we shall affirm the judgment.

1

The notice of appeal must “identif[y] the particular judgment or order being appealed.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.100(a)(2).) “The notice of appeal must be liberally construed.” (Ibid.) “This rule has been construed to mean a notice of appeal is sufficient if ‘it is reasonably clear what appellant was trying to appeal from, and where the respondent could not possibly have been misled or prejudiced.’ [Citation.]” (Ellis Law Group, LLP v. Nevada City Sugar Loaf Properties, LLC (2104) 230 Cal.App.4th 244, 251.) Here, the notice of appeal identifies “Judgment after court trial.” The date of the judgment is not specified, and the box next to “Judgment of dismissal after an order sustaining a demurrer” is not marked. There is no judgment or order attached to the notice. The civil case information statement specifies that the appeal is from the judgment after court trial entered on August 23, 2013, a copy of which is attached to the statement. Under these circumstances, the only reasonable conclusion is that defendant is appealing from the “Judgment on Non Jury Trial” entered on August 23, 2013, which deals solely with the plaintiffs’ claims against defendants and does not mention plaintiffs’ demurrer to defendants’ cross-complaint. Because the notice cannot reasonably be construed as including the order sustaining plaintiffs’ demurrer to defendants’ cross- complaint, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction to review defendants’ claims on appeal related thereto. Turning to defendants’ claims related to the judgment entered on August 23, 2013, we note that defendants elected to proceed on a clerk’s transcript and a limited reporter’s transcript. In particular, we note that the reporter’s transcript includes excerpts of testimony from some of the witnesses as well as the trial court’s oral ruling.1 Where, as