Laserfiche WebLink
1 II . This Motion must be denied because it was <br /> not timely filed under California Code of <br /> 2 Civil Procedure Section 663a. <br /> 3 California Code of Civil Procedure ("CCP" ) section 663a <br /> 4 provides that a motion to vacate pursuant to section 663 must be <br /> 5 filed <br /> 6 M ithin 15 days of the date of mailing of <br /> notice of entry of judgment by the clerk of <br /> 7 the court pursuant to Section 664 . 5 , or <br /> service upon him by any party .of written <br /> 8 notice of entry of judgment, or within 180 <br /> days after the entry of judgment , whichever is <br /> 9 earlier. <br /> ID Thus, the latest the statute of limitations for filing a motion <br /> 11 under CCP section 663 can be is 180 days after entry of the <br /> 12 judgment, which in this case was January 31 , 1993 . This Motion, <br /> 13 filed August 10 , 1993 , was not timely. <br /> 14 The People, as a party, are bound to the fifteen day <br /> 15 statute of limitations set forth in Section 663a, which ran in <br /> 16 August 1992 . In any event, the Board received "written notice of <br /> 17 entry of judgment" as provided in Section 663a on September 29 , <br /> 18 1992 when representatives of the Board were provided a copy of <br /> 19 the Final Judgment by Sumiden (Declaration of M. Connolly, <br /> 20 attached hereto as Exhibit B, at 1 8) . Thus, even if the Board <br /> 21 were entitled to special treatment , the limitation period ran <br /> 22 against the Board at the latest on October 14 , 1992 . <br /> 23 The Board argues that Aries Development Co . v <br /> 24 California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission, 48 Cal . App. 3d <br /> 25 534 (1975) , allows an "aggrieved person" who was not a party to <br /> 26 the original action to move to vacate a judgment at any time <br /> 27 after the judgment was entered, e. a . , 1 year, 2 years or <br /> 28 <br /> 11 <br />