Supreme Court of California

In an action brought against Honda involving timing belts which allegedly required costly periodic repairs, dismissal of an appeal from an order denying class certification as untimely is reversed where contrary to the ruling below, certain documents the superior court had mailed to the parties to inform them of its order did not satisfy California Rule of Court 8.104(a)(1) for purposes of commencing the 60-day period specified in the rule for filing a notice of appeal.

Appellate Information

• Decided 03/15/2007
• Published 03/15/2007

Judges

• WERDEGAR, J.

Court

• Supreme Court of California

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• The Law Offices of John A. Schlaff and John A. Schlaff, Los Angeles, for Plaintiff and Appellant., Jay-Allen Eisen, Sacramento;  Dennis A. Fischer, Santa Monica;  Paul D. Fogel, San Francisco;  Steven L. Mayer, San Francisco;  Robert Olson, Los Angeles;  Douglas R. Young, San Francisco;  Lascher & Lascher and Wendy Cole Lascher, Ventura, for California Academy of Appellate Lawyers as Amicus Curiae.


• For Appellees:
  
• Michelman & Robinson, Carol Boyd, Encino, Larry Nathenson;  Neumeyer & Boyd, Los Angeles, Katherine Tatikian, Encino;  Sonnett & Associates, Anthony E. Sonnett, Jocelyn A. Julian;  Yukevich & Sonnett and Stephanie A. Hingle for Defendant and Respondent.