Jacobs v. Rackauckas
Filed 4/20/06 Jacobs v. Rackauckas CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
| MICHAEL A. JACOBS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. ANTHONY RACKAUCKAS et al., Defendants and Respondents. | G034403 (Super. Ct. No. 02CC01476) O P I N I O N |
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Thomas I. McKnew, Jr., Judge. Appeal dismissed in part and affirmed in part.
Gary S. Bennett for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Lynberg & Watkins, Norman J. Watkins, and S. Frank Harrell for Defendants and Respondents.
* * *
Michael Jacobs filed an action against the County of Orange; Anthony Rackauckas, the Orange County District Attorney; Charles Middleton, Chief Assistant District Attorney; and Kay Rackauckas, the District Attorney's wife and a Deputy District Attorney for the County of Orange. Jacobs alleged he was wrongfully terminated from his position as Assistant District Attorney because he reported what he believed were violations of law by Rackauckas to the California State Attorney General's office. He also alleged the defendants wrongfully distributed a packet to the media that included confidential documents from Jacobs' personnel files pertaining to his termination and private information about his divorce.
The case was tried to a jury. After the presentation of evidence, the trial court granted a directed verdict on causes of action for invasion of privacy, false light, and intentional interference with prospective financial advantage. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants on the remaining causes of action (wrongful termination in violation of public policy, violation of the whistleblower statute, and intentional infliction of emotional distress), and judgment was entered. Jacobs filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and motion for new trial; both were denied.
Jacobs filed a notice of appeal from the judgment and from the denial of his motions for new trial and judgment notwithstanding the verdict. He contends the trial court committed reversible error by making incorrect evidentiary rulings and failing to respond properly to the jurors' questions. He also challenges the directed verdict for invasion of privacy and false light and contends a new trial should have been granted due to juror misconduct.
The defendants have moved to dismiss the appeal from the judgment as untimely and to dismiss the appeal from the motion for new trial as from a nonappealable order. As explained below, we are obliged to grant the motion to dismiss. Jacobs is left with a timely appeal from the denial of his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which we review and affirm.
Motion to Dismiss
A party has 60 days from the date he is served with the notice of judgment to file a notice of appeal from the judgment. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2(a)(2).) The time is extended, however, if a party files a valid notice of intent to move for a new trial or a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Either of these post-judgment motions extends the time to appeal from the judgment until â€
