Court Opinion

ID: 9375764
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-28 20:02:26.095088+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:01.644454
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/28/23 Young v. Hill CA3
                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                      THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                                     (Sacramento)
                                                            ----

MICHELLE C. YOUNG,                                                                           C095582

                   Plaintiff and Respondent,                                    (Super. Ct. No. 21FS01266)

         v.

CALVIN D. HILL, JR.,

                   Defendant and Appellant;

SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF
CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES,

                   Respondent.

         Calvin D. Hill filed a notice of appeal from an October 26, 2021 order that denied
two motions he filed on June 25, 2021. After reviewing the briefs that were submitted to
this court, we have concluded there is no appealable order on which to base the appeal,
and an insufficient record on which to predicate review by petition for writ of mandate.
Accordingly, we will dismiss the appeal.

                                                             1
                                      I. DISCUSSION
       “ ‘It is settled that the right of appeal is statutory and that a judgment or order is
not appealable unless expressly made so by statute.’ ” (People v. Mazurette (2001) 24
Cal.4th 789, 792.) Further, “a reviewing court is ‘without jurisdiction to consider an
appeal from a nonappealable order, and has the duty to dismiss such an appeal upon its
own motion.’ ” (In re Mario C. (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1307.)
       In his opening brief, Hill asserts his appeal is from a judgment of the superior
court and “is authorized by . . . Code of Civil Procedure, § 904.1(a)(3) and (a)(10).”1 No
judgment appears in the record. Rather, Hill appeals from an October 26, 2021 order that
states, “Deny objection-requested for enforcement only—New Mexico has Continuing
exclusive jurisdiction for modifying if any requested. [¶] This order after hearing
includes both motions that were filed on 6/25/21 by [Hill].” The record shows one of the
motions Hill filed on June 25, 2021, was a motion to quash service of summons. This
motion is in the clerk’s transcript on appeal; no other motion is. Similarly, the motion to
quash service of summons is the only motion Hill mentions in his opening brief. As
such, the appellate briefing has clarified that Hill’s appeal is purportedly from an order
denying a motion to quash service of summons. Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1,
subdivision (a)(3) authorizes, in relevant part, appeals “[f]rom an order granting a motion
to quash service of summons.” (Italics added.) To obtain review of an order denying a
motion to quash service of summons, a defendant must file a petition for writ of
mandate.2 (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10, subd. (c).)

1 Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1, subdivision (a)(10) states an appeal may be
taken “[f]rom an order made appealable by the Probate Code or the Family Code.”
2 The defendant must file the petition for writ of mandate “within 10 days after service
upon him or her of a written notice of entry of an order of the court denying his or her
motion, or within any further time not exceeding 20 days that the trial court may for good
cause allow.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10, subd. (c).) Respondent Sacramento County

                                               2
        Hill did not file a petition for writ of mandate and has not requested treatment of
his appeal as a petition for writ of mandate. Respondent Sacramento County Department
of Child Support Services argues we should exercise our “discretion to treat a purported
appeal from a nonappealable order as a petition for writ of mandate.” (H.D. Arnaiz, Ltd.
v. County of San Joaquin (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1357, 1366.)3 We disagree.
        In Olson v. Cory (1983) 35 Cal.3d 390, before engaging in its analysis of whether
the necessary circumstances were present to exercise its power to treat the appeal at issue
as a petition for writ of mandate, our Supreme Court explained that the records and briefs
before it “include[d] in substance the elements necessary to a proceeding for writ of
mandate.” (Id. at p. 401.) The court continued its discussion by explaining, “Though we
thus have power to treat the purported appeal as a petition for writ of mandate, we should
not exercise that power except under unusual circumstances.” (Ibid.) Here, the threshold
requirement of an adequate record for a proceeding for writ of mandate is unmet. We
disagree with the Sacramento County Department of Child Support Services’s assertion
that the record is sufficient to treat this matter as a writ proceeding. In particular, the
record does not include all the documents “submitted to the trial court that are necessary
for a complete understanding of the case and the ruling under review.” (Cal. Rules of
Court, rule 8.486(b)(1)(C).) The record on appeal is notably devoid of the document that
originated the underlying proceeding. Thus, the record is insufficient to understand what
the underlying proceeding is. Hill argues the issue raised by his appeal is whether, after
the remarriage of divorced parents, either may enforce against the other child support

Department of Child Support Services filed a request for judicial notice related to its
assertion that Hill’s appeal is timely. We deferred decision on this request pending
calendaring and assignment of the panel. Because we are dismissing the appeal as from
an unappealable order, we need not address its timeliness. Therefore, we now deny the
request for judicial notice as unnecessary to our disposition of this appeal.
3   Respondent Michelle Young did not file a respondent’s brief.

                                               3
orders made in prior divorce proceedings. The argument portion of his brief contains no
record citations and thus does not support this assertion. Moreover, the issue Hill asserts
is raised by his appeal was not raised in his motion to quash service of summons. The
record on appeal does not include any opposition to that motion or any indication whether
any opposition was filed. The fact the record does not include the other motion filed by
Hill on June 25, 2021, is also significant. If, as the order and Hill’s argument on appeal
indicates, Hill did not limit his objections at the hearing to matters of jurisdiction and
opposed the prayers for relief—whatever they may have been—on the merits, he
submitted to the court’s jurisdiction by making a general appearance and the court
properly denied his motion to quash service.4 (In re Marriage of Obrecht (2016) 245
Cal.App.4th 1, 9.) The record in this case is simply insufficient to understand the case
and the ruling on review. Accordingly, we will not treat this appeal from a
nonappealable order as a petition for writ of mandate.

4 There was no court reporter present at the August 16, 2021 and October 25, 2021 court
hearings, and thus no reporter’s transcript is part of the record on appeal.

                                              4
                                  II. DISPOSITION
      The appeal is dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.

                                                       /S/

                                               RENNER, Acting P. J.

We concur:

/S/

EARL, J.

/S/

BOULWARE EURIE, J.

                                           5