Zhang v. Shao CA4/3

Filed 4/1/21 Zhang v. Shao CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

TING ZHANG et al.,

Plaintiffs and Respondents, G058045

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2017-00924225)

XIAO SHAO et al., OPINION

Defendants and Appellants.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Nathan R. Scott, Judge. Dismissed. Law Offices of Angela Swan and Angela Swan; Travis M. Poteat; Sheila Mojtehedi for Defendants and Appellants. The Law Offices of Sam X.J. Wu, Sam X.J. Wu and Victor Russame for Plaintiffs and Respondents.

INTRODUCTION Xiao Shao, Xiao Zheng, Shedoor International, Inc., and Shedoor International, LLC (Appellants), filed a notice of appeal after the trial court entered judgment in favor of Ting Zhang, Zhiqin Song, and Lan Fang (Plaintiffs) on a wage-and- hour complaint. Judgment was entered in March 2019, but Appellants did not file their notice of appeal until July 2019. The grounds of this appeal are not entirely clear. But whatever they are, it is clear that this appeal is from non-appealable orders, untimely, or both. We can review only judgments and appealable orders. The only judgment rendered in this case was entered in March 2019. Appellants did not timely appeal from this judgment, and we cannot review it now. Likewise, they cannot resurrect a dead appeal by making a motion to vacate an order made before judgment was entered and then appealing from the order denying that motion. The appeal is therefore dismissed. FACTS Plaintiffs/Respondents filed a wage-and-hour complaint against Defendants/Appellants in June 2017 and a first amended complaint the same month. In February 2018, Plaintiffs filed a motion to deem requests for admissions admitted. The motion was unopposed and granted on June 18, 2018. Appellants’ motion for reconsideration of the order granting the motion was denied on September 17, 2018. In October, Plaintiffs moved for summary adjudication of six of the eleven causes of action of the first amended complaint. Appellants applied ex parte on December 17 to continue the hearing on the summary adjudication motion; the court denied that application on December 18.1 Appellants filed another ex parte application to continue the summary adjudication hearing on December 27. The hearing on this second application was continued from December 28 to December 31.