Court Opinion

ID: 9724480
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 10:57:53.39467+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:00.778140
License: Public Domain

ELKINGTON, J.
I dissent.
I am of the opinion that the time for taking an appeal commences to run from “actual service of a filed copy of the order appealed from” by the clerk, as was here effected, and, Pacific City Bank v. Los Caballeros Racquet & Sports Club, Ltd. (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 223, 227 [195 Cal.Rptr. 776], notwithstanding, that the trial court’s intent “to provide notice to the parties” is immaterial. The notice of entry of the order required by law had here been substantially complied with. “Substantial compliance expresses a rule of interpretation which derives from general maxims of equity — that substance governs over form, that no one is required to perform an idle act. (Civ. Code, §§ 3528, 3532.) Hence if the essence of a requirement has been met, or if its performance would be superfluous, then the law holds that the requirement has been substantially complied with.” (People v. Boone (1969) *9562 Cal.App.3d 503, 506 [82 Cal.Rptr. 566].) I would dismiss the appeal taken 114 days after “actual service of a filed copy of the order appealed from,” as untimely.