Barley v. City of
Filed 1/29/13 Barley v. City of Inglewood CA2/2
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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
SECOND
APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION
TWO
GLINDIA BARLEY,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
CITY OF INGLEWOOD,
Defendants and Respondents.
B236356
(Los Angeles
County
Super. Ct.
No. BC420774)
APPEAL from
a judgment of the Superior Court
of
County.
William C. Willet, Judge.
Dismissed.
Glindia
Barley, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Taufiki D.
Joshua, Assistant City
Attorney, Michael C. Pan, Deputy City Attorney, for Defendants and Respondents.
___________________________________________________
>
Glindia
Barley attempts to appeal from a judgment after jury trial ordering that she
take nothing on her complaint against defendants
City of Inglewood
and Celia Islas. Because Barley’s appeal
was untimely, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
FACTS
Barley
brought suit against the City of Inglewood
and police officer Islas, alleging that on January 1, 2009, Islas unlawfully arrested her when Islas
and other Inglewood Police Department officers responded to a call for
assistance at Barley’s residence.
Immediately following the police visit, Barley was transported to the
hospital, complaining of chest pains.
When Barley was released from the hospital, she returned to her premises
to find that all of her possessions had been removed, allegedly by her sister,
Bobbie Scott, with whom she was having an ongoing tenancy dispute. Barley claimed that she suffered
due to the actions of Islas and the City of Inglewood.
Barley’s
action proceeded to trial on causes of action for unlawful arrest, false
arrest, conversion and conspiracy, and intentional infliction of emotional
distress. Following an eight-day trial,
the jury returned unanimous defense verdicts on all counts remaining in the
case. Judgment on the jury verdict was
entered on July 29, 2011,
and notice of entry of judgment was filed and served by mail the same day. Barley filed her notice of appeal on Wednesday, September 28, 2011.
DISCUSSION
This court
has no jurisdiction to consider a late-filed appeal, and, in the absence of
statutory authorization, may not extend the time for filing a notice of
appeal. (Maynard v. Brandon
(2005) 36 Cal.4th 364, 372-373.) An
untimely appeal must be dismissed, either on a party’s motion or on the court’s
own motion. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule
8.104(b); Estate of Hanley (1943) 23
Cal.2d 120, 123.)
Barley’s
appeal was untimely. A notice of appeal
generally must be filed within the earliest of 60 days after service of notice
of entry of judgment or a file stamped copy of the judgment, or 180 days after
entry of judgment. (Cal. Rules of Court,
rule 8.104(a).) Notice of entry of
judgment in this case was served on July
29, 2011. Barley filed her
notice of appeal 61 days thereafter, on September
28, 2011. The last day for
Barley to timely file a notice of appeal
was September 27.
The fact
that notice of entry was served by mail on July 29, 2011, and received thereafter is irrelevant. Although mail service often results in a
five-day extension of time, “Code of Civil Procedure section 1013, subdivision
(a) explicitly states that the five-day extension ‘shall not apply to extend
the time for filing . . . notice of appeal.’â€
(Casado v. Sedgwick, Detert, Moran
& Arnold (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1284, 1285-1286 [notice of appeal filed
61 days after service of notice of entry of judgment is untimely].) Therefore, this Court is without
jurisdiction to consider Barley’s appeal.
DISPOSITION
The appeal
is dismissed.
NOT TO
BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
BOREN,
P.J.
We concur:
ASHMANN-GERST,
J.
CHAVEZ, J.
