Today's DJ has appellate specialist David J. Ozeran's article Appeal deadline rules are a trap -- it's time to fix them -- Whether it's titling a notice correctly or complying with strict timing rules, California's appeal deadlines demand precision. He concludes and proposes:
There is no justification for this complex set of rules where a much simpler rule would work. Why not simply apply the outside deadline of 180 days after entry of judgment to all appeals? That way there will be no disputes regarding whether a notice of entry of judgment was actually served, or whether it met the standards for triggering the deadline, or whether an extension based on the filing of a post-trial motion applies. There is no reason why the deadline for filing a notice of appeal should be based on, for example, how a notice of entry of judgment is titled or when a notice of order denying a new trial motion was served rather than on the actual date judgment was entered.
...
The rules regarding the appeal deadline create a trap for the unwary. Replacing the current framework with an easily understood, one-size-fits-all deadline will reduce or virtually eliminate attorney error resulting in late-filed appeals. A less complicated, easily understood and easily applied rule should be adopted requiring a notice of appeal to be filed within 180 days after entry of judgment or appealable order.
Concerns that replacing the current framework with a single 180-deadline will result in delay are unwarranted, as appellants usually want to proceed expeditiously rather than delay unnecessarily. However, if a 180-day deadline is considered to be too long, then a shorter deadline can be enacted. However, a single, easily applied deadline based on the date judgment is entered should replace the current labyrinth of rules that determines the deadline for filing a notice of appeal.
Posts
