Rutkowski-Cesaire v. City of Santa Ana CA4/3

Filed 2/23/24 Rutkowski-Cesaire v. City of Santa Ana 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

ANTHONY RUTKOWSKI-CESAIRE,

Plaintiff and Appellant, G061729

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2020-01140956)

CITY OF SANTA ANA et al., OPINION

Defendants and Respondents.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Ronald L. Bauer, Judge. (Retired judge of the Orange Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Dismissed. DRE, A.P.C., Darren M. Richie and Antonio Castillo III for Plaintiff and Appellant. Kyle C. Nellesen and Jonathan T. Martinez for Defendant and Respondent City of Santa Ana.

INTRODUCTION Anthony Rutkowski-Cesaire (appellant) appeals from a judgment in favor of the City of Santa Ana (City) and other defendants. In his notice of appeal, however, he identifies a different judgment as the one from which he appeals, a judgment amended merely to award costs. Any appeal from the original judgment would now be untimely. We must therefore dismiss the appeal. FACTS Appellant sued the City, Santa Ana City Jail, Santa Ana Police Department, Officer Crippen, Sergeant Franks, Sergeant Monreal, and Santa Ana Sheriff’s Department, asserting that he had been injured during an in-custody transfer from federal court in Los Angeles to the Santa Ana jail. After a two-day bench trial in April 2022, the court took the matter under submission. On May 6, 2022, the court issued a minute order dismissing all the defendants except the City and Officer Crippen. It rendered judgment in favor of these two defendants. Formal judgment was entered on June 24, 2022. After the City filed a memorandum of costs in the amount of $5,688, the court entered an amended judgment on August 16, 2022, for these costs. Appellant’s notice of appeal, filed on August 24, 2022, specifies the August amended judgment as the judgment from which he appeals.1 DISCUSSION Under California Rules of Court2, rule 8.104(a)(1), an appellant has a limited period within which to file a notice of appeal from a judgment or appealable order.3 An appellate court does not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal filed after the deadline has passed. (Laraway v. Pasadena Unified School Dist. (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th