Laserfiche WebLink
1 10 years . However, both the Board ' s reliance on Aries, and its <br /> 2 interpretation of Aries, are incorrect . <br /> 3 First , Aries applies only to a motion made by one who <br /> 4 was not a party to the original action. Aries at 541 . 6 Aries is <br /> 5 inapplicable here because this Motion purportedly was filed by <br /> 6 the Board on behalf of the People, and the People were parties to <br /> 7 the original action. ? Therefore, this Motion is subject to the <br /> 8 time limits of CCP section 663a, and was required to be filed no <br /> 9 later than January 31, 1993 . <br /> 1.0 Second, contrary to the Board' s characterization, Aries <br /> 11 decided only that the 15-day period prescribed by <br /> 12 CCP section 663a does not apply to aggrieved persons who were not <br /> 13 parties of record at the time of the original judgment . The <br /> 14 opinion does not reach the question whether the 180-day time <br /> 15 limit is waived for aggrieved persons who were not parties of <br /> 16 record when judgment was entered . Aries at 542 . The <br /> 17 justification for waiving the 15-day time limit apparently is <br /> 18 that one who was not a party to the original action might not <br /> 19 become aware of the judgment within 15 days . 8 <br /> 20 <br /> 21 6 As explained in Section III .A. , infra, the Board ' s reliance <br /> on Aries also is misplaced because the Board is not an <br /> 22 "aggrieved person. " <br /> 23 7 It is noteworthy that the Board does not offer any <br /> authority to justify its bald assertion that it somehow is a <br /> 24 different "People of the State of California" than the "People <br /> of the State of California" in whose favor the judgment was <br /> 25 entered.. <br /> 26 8 In addition to being barred from bringing this Motion by <br /> statute, the Board should be estopped based upon the fact that <br /> 27 it was notified of these proceedings against Sumiden in 1990 , <br /> and again in 1991 , and on September 29 , 1992 , while visiting <br /> 28 Sumiden, the Board was provided with a copy of the stipulated <br /> Judgment . Declaration of R. Olson, attached hereto as <br /> Exhibit A, at 11 4 , 6; Declaration of M. Connolly, attached <br /> FOOTNOTE 8 CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE <br /> 12 <br />