Legal Question in Civil Litigation in California

California Rules of Court, Rule 2(a)

I am attempting to bring a due process Constitutional challenge to the California Rules of Court, Rule 2(a) in that it allows a ''file-stamped'' copy of a judgment to serve in the stead of a formal ''notice of entry of judgment.''

The basis for the challenge is that it is not reasonable notice that the 60 day period for filing the notice of appeal has commenced. Many cases have been unfairly dismissed from the Court of Appeal for being untimely because of said rule. Also the language of the rule is vague and ambiguous making it subject to more than one interpretation.

If you, or any other attorney you know, have been caught in a similar trap please mail the case number, title of the case and the court to:

[email protected]

If I can show that a substantial amount of cases have been unfairly dismissed because of inadequate notice under the rule, I have a decent chance of demonstrating that the notice was not reasonable. Please help. I feel that the rule unfairly causes cases to be dismissed from the Court of Appeal that should have been heard on the merits.

Thank you for your consideration

--


Asked on 10/08/01, 3:46 pm

1 Answer from Attorneys
Edward Hoffman Law Offices of Edward A. Hoffman

Re: California Rules of Court, Rule 2(a)

Rule 2(a) is irksome because lawyers generally don't know about the provision you cite and, when served with a file-stamped copy of the judgment, often fail to recognize that their time has started running. I don't believe the rule itself is unduly vague or ambiguous; someone who reads it can readily understand what it means. The problem is that most lawyers do not read it. That, however, is not a basis to strike it down.

Read more
Answered on 11/21/01, 4:06 pm


Related Questions & Answers

More General Civil Litigation questions and answers in California