Crokin v. Primrose CA4/3

Filed 1/3/24 Crokin v. Primrose 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

ELIZABETH MARY CROKIN,

Plaintiff and Appellant, G061959

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2018-01039553)

DREW PRIMROSE et al., OPINION

Defendants and Respondents.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Craig L. Griffin, Judge. Dismissed. The Medler Law Firm and John F. Medler, Jr., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Clark Hill, David L. Brandon; Wolfe & Wyman and Jason D. Hunter for Defendants and Respondents.

Elizabeth Mary Crokin suffered personal injuries and appeals from the trial court’s judgment entered after a jury trial. She challenges pretrial grants of summary adjudication and the denial of a posttrial motion. We dismiss the appeal as untimely. FACTS In 2018, Crokin suffered personal injuries after signing a liability waiver form. She filed her lawsuit in this matter and, in 2020, based on an enforcement of the waiver form, the trial court granted two summary adjudications in favor of Drew Primrose and others (collectively, defendants), against Crokin’s claims of ordinary negligence. Crokin’s remaining causes of action (including gross negligence and negligence per se) proceeded to a trial where the jury found in favor of defendants. Judgment was entered and a notice of its entry was mailed to Crokin by the trial court clerk in July 2022 (all dates without mention of the year will refer to 2022). Crokin filed a “motion to vacate the judgment/verdict and for new trial” (capitalization omitted; the new trial motion). The trial court denied it and, on September 13, Crokin was served with a copy of the denial order attached to a notice of entry of the order. Forty-one days later, on October 24, Crokin filed her notice of appeal. Two weeks before, on October 13, the court had entered an amended judgment that awarded prevailing party costs against her. DISCUSSION The time limit governing Crokin’s notice of appeal is within “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 filed-endorsed copy of the judgment, showing the date either was served.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.104(a)(1)(A).) Extensions of this deadline based on a motion for new trial or motion to vacate judgment are both governed by the same rule: the notice of appeal must be filed within “30 days after the superior court clerk or a party serves an order denying the motion or a notice of entry of that