Linstrom v. Letourneau CA3

Filed 11/6/26 Linstrom v. Letourneau CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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) JOSHUA LINSTROM, C104156 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 20FL03595) v. ALEXZANDRIA LETOURNEAU, Defendant and Respondent. Plaintiff and appellant Joshua Linstrom challenges the trial court’s April 28, 2025, order denying his motion for a new trial. Because we conclude that Linstrom’s notice of appeal was not timely filed, we dismiss his appeal. FACTS AND HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS Linstrom and Alexzandria Letourneau share two children together and have been involved in child custody proceedings since at least 2021. As relevant here, the trial court issued an order on February 21, 2025, prohibiting Linstrom from contacting or visiting the children “until further order of the Court.” Linstrom subsequently filed an ex parte application that was denied by the trial court on February 25, 2025, because he failed to show immediate harm or an emergency. An order to show cause was set for April 21, 2025. 1  In the interim, Linstrom filed an “ ‘Objection of Statement of Decision and Motion for New Trial.’ ” After a hearing, the trial court denied the motion on April 28, 2025. Copies of the order were sent to the parties on the same day through the U.S. and electronic mail. Linstrom filed a notice of appeal on June 26, 2025, challenging the judgment and the trial court’s denial of his motion for a new trial. DISCUSSION “ ‘A timely notice of appeal vests jurisdiction in the Court of Appeal. [Citations.]’ [Citation.] ‘The time for appealing a judgment [or appealable order] is jurisdictional; once the deadline expires, the appellate court has no power to entertain the appeal. [Citation.]’ [Citation.] ‘In the absence of statutory authorization, neither the trial nor appellate courts may extend or shorten the time for appeal [citation], even to relieve against mistake, inadvertence, accident, or misfortune [citations] .... If it appears that the appeal was not taken within the [relevant jurisdictional period], the court has no discretion but must dismiss the appeal of its own motion even if no objection is made. [Citations.]’ ” (Annette F. v. Sharon S. (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1448, 1454.) “If a notice of appeal is filed late, the reviewing court must dismiss the appeal.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.104(b) (further rule references are to the California Rules of Court).) A notice of appeal is due 60 days after the trial court clerk serves the party with the notice of entry of judgment. (Rule 8.104(a)(1)(A).) However, the time to appeal is extended when a party files a motion for a new trial. As relevant here, a party must appeal within 30 days from the date the trial court clerk serves the order denying a motion for a new trial. (Rule 8.108(b)(1)(A).) The record reflects that the trial court denied Linstrom’s motion for a new trial on April 28, 2025, and sent copies to him via U.S. and electronic mail on the same day. By rule of court, Linstrom’s notice of appeal was due 30 days later, on May 28, 2025. 2 Linstrom filed his notice of appeal on June 26, 2025. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as untimely. (Rule 8.104(b).) DISPOSITION The appeal is dismissed. Letourneau is awarded costs incurred on appeal. (Rule 8.278(a)(2).) /s/ HULL, Acting P. J. We concur: /s/ MAURO, J. /s/ DAMRELL, J. 3