A comprehensive and easily accessible directory of Employee Leasing Services nationwide
help small business Attract and Retain quality employees by offering quality benefits through Employee Leasing Services
Foster an environment of fellowship and free exchange of ideas among member Employee Leasing Companies

  to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.

Dostal v. Martinez Refining Co.

6/17/2002

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.


Norman D. Dostal (appellant) worked for Martinez Refining Company (respondent). On June 22, 1998, respondent terminated appellant's employment. Appellant sued respondent for wrongful termination and breach of contract. Respondent answered the complaint and petitioned to confirm an arbitration award entered on July 6, 2000. The arbitrator in those proceedings determined that respondent did not terminate appellant's employment "in violation of the law or an implied contract of employment that it may have made with him."


On September 25, 2001, the trial court granted respondent's petition. Judgment was entered in conformity with that order on October 5, 2001. Respondent served appellant with notice of entry of judgment, by mail, on October 11, 2001. Appellant filed a notice of appeal on December 13, 2001.


Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 2(a)(2), a notice of appeal must be filed within 60 days of service of notice of entry of judgment. That period may not be exceeded, even when service is effected by mail. (Casado v. Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1284, 1286 (Casado).) Here, appellant filed his notice of appeal 63 days after he was served with notice of entry of judgment-3 days late under rule 2(a)(2). Appellant's late filing deprives this court of jurisdiction to consider his appeal. (Casado, supra, 22 Cal.App.4th at p. 1286.) Accordingly, the appeal must be-and hereby is-dismissed. (Ibid.; rule 2(e).)


Appellant to bear costs of appeal.


We concur:


Parrilli, J.


Pollak, J.






Page 1 

California Employee Leasing Services    Employee Leasing Services


  to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.

Employee Leasing Who Is the Employer? Hiring/Firing Issues
Employee Leasing Advantage Employee Leasing Models Human Resources Management
Employee Handbooks American with Disabilities Act (ADA) Employers Practice Liability Insurance (EPL)
Employment Forms, Postings Sexual Harassment at workplace Employee Leasing vs. Temp
Administrative Services Organization (ASO) Human Resources Organization (HRO) Professional Employer Organization (PEO)
Payroll Services Human Resources Workers Compensation Codes
FDP  |   RSS Feeds  |  Articles  |  Jobs  |  Inquiries  |  Partner Websites
SiteMap  | Trading Partners  | Register  | Case LawsFAQ | Employee Leasing Forum | Employee Leasing Directory  | Success Stories
Terms of Service  Copyright © 2004. “Employee-Leasing.org ”. All rights reserved.