Opinion
Page 1466a
160 Cal.App.4th 1466a __ Cal.Rptr.3d__ EDMOND ADAIMY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SANDRA RUHL et al., Defendants and Respondents. B193745 California Court of Appeal, Second District, First Division March 25, 2008Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC331928
[Modification of opinion (160 Cal.App.4th 583;___Cal.Rptr.3d___), upon denial of rehearing.]
THE COURT
It is ordered the opinion filed herein on February 28, 2008, (160 Cal.App.4th 583;___Cal.Rptr.3d___) be modified as follows, and petition for rehearing is DENIED:
On page 6 [160 Cal.App. 4th 588, advance report, 1st par., line 11] add the following at line 3:
Adaimy also asserts that the August 7, 2006 "Ruling on Submitted Matter" was not a notice of entry of order within the meaning of rule 8.108(b)(1)(A) of the California Rules of Court, in that it was not entitled "Notice of Entry of Order" and was not file-stamped with the date of entry. Adaimy acknowledges that on page 6 of the August 7, 2006 “Ruling on Submitted Matter,” the words “Notice of Entry of Order” do appear. The document is not file-stamped with the date of entry, but that is not required for it to be a valid notice of entry of order. Rule 8.108(b)(1)(A) of the California Rules of Court gives an extension of time to file a notice of appeal until “30 days after the superior court clerk mails, or a party serves, an order denying the motion or a notice of entry of that order.” It does not require that the notice of entry be file-stamped.
The file-stamping requirement comes into play under rule 8.104(a)(1), which starts the time to file a notice of appeal when the clerk mails “a document entitled 'Notice of Entry' of judgment or a file-stamped copy of the judgment.” (Italics added.) Again, the notice of entry of order need not be file-stamped. Adaimy’s assertion therefore is not well taken.
This modification does not change the judgment.