Rutkowski-Cesaire v. City of Santa Ana CA4/3 ( 2024 )

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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
1Appellant’s notice of appeal actually states that he is appealing from a judgment of August 16,
2021.
2
City’s assertion that rule 8.406(a)(1) applies to this appeal is incorrect. This rule applies to
juvenile appeals and writs. In addition, the court entered a formal judgment on June 24, 2022, so the time to appeal
ran from that date, not from the minute order of May 6, 2022, explaining the court’s decision.
3
All further rule references are to the California Rules of Court.
2
579, 582.) The notice of appeal must be filed no later than 180 days after entry of
judgment, unless the shorter periods of rule 8.104(a)(1) or rule 8.104(a)(2) apply, or the
time is extended under rule 8.108. As nothing in the record indicates that a notice of
entry was ever served in this case and rule 8.108 does not apply here, the 180-day
deadline for filing of the notice of appeal obtains. The time to appeal from the June
judgment ran out in late December 2022.
In addition to a timely filing, a notice of appeal must correctly specify the
order or judgment appealed from. “‘Our jurisdiction on appeal is limited in scope to the
notice of appeal and the judgment or order appealed from.’ [Citation.]” (Soldate v.
Fidelity National Financial, Inc. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1069, 1073.) In this case,
judgment in defendants’ favor was entered on June 24, 2022. An amended judgment,
adding only costs, was entered on August 16, 2022. Appellant does not argue in his
opening brief that the court made any error regarding costs.4 His appeal addresses only
the basis of the original judgment entered in June.
It is well established that modifying a judgment to award costs or attorney
fees does not disturb the original judgment or extend the time to appeal from that
judgment. (Hjelm v. Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc. (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 1155,
1163-1164.) A party may separately appeal from an amended judgment awarding costs
or attorney fees if it disputes the basis for that award. (See LNSU #1, LLC v. Alta Del
Mar Coastal Collection Community Assn. (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 1050, 1081
[postjudgment award of costs separately appealable].) But an appeal from the original
judgment must identify that judgment in the notice of appeal. When a notice of appeal
specifically describes the judgment appealed from, as it does in this case, it cannot be
construed to constitute an appeal from a different ruling. (See Glassco v. El Sereno
Country Club, Inc. (1932) 217 Cal. 90, 92.)
4
Appellant did not file a reply brief.
3
We therefore do not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the judgment
of June 24, 2022. The appeal must be dismissed.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed. Respondents are to recover their costs on appeal.
BEDSWORTH, J.
WE CONCUR:
O’LEARY, P. J.
GOETHALS, J.
4