Laserfiche WebLink
ATTORNEY GENERAL 'S OFF TEL : 1-916-324-2960 Sep 17 93 14 :50 No .015 P . 06 <br /> 1 ( (Declaration of Robert Olson, page 2, line 11-12. ) Yet the <br /> 2 letter attached to the returns made no mention of the County's <br /> 3 report of violations. <br /> a The key fact, however, is that the Board was unaware of <br /> 5 the terms of the Stipulated Judgment and was unaware that the <br /> 6 Stipulated Judgment purported to prevent it from determining if <br /> 7 Sumiden paid the proper fees for the years in question. <br /> 6 (Declaration of Lou Feletto. ) There is no factual allegation by <br /> 9 Sumiden that the Board was informed of the terms of the <br /> 10 Stipulated Judgment or consented to its terms. <br /> 12 THE TIME REQUIREMENTS OF CODE OF CIVIL <br /> PROCEDURE SECTION 663a ARE INAPPLICABLE TO A <br /> 13 PERSON NOT A PARTY TO THE ACTION <br /> 14, Sumiden contends that Aries Dov. Co. v. California <br /> 15 Costal Zone conservation Com. (1975) 48 Cal.App.3d 534 only <br /> 16 decided if the 15 day limitation applied to an aggrieved person <br /> 17 not a party to the action and did not decide if the 180 <br /> 18 limitation applied. Sumiden then states that "the .Legialature <br /> 19 has provided that the 180-day time limit of CCP section 663a <br /> 20 applies to an person who move to vacate a judgment, even to one <br /> 21 who was not a party at the time of the judgment." (Opposition, <br /> 22 page 13, lines 10-12, emphasis in original. ) This argument is <br /> 23 unsupported by the statute. The statute says that the party must <br /> 24 bring the motion within either the 15-day or the - 180-day period. <br /> 25 The statue does .not refer to any person; it only refers to party. <br /> 26 The rationale of Aries Dev. Co. is equally-applicable to either <br /> 27 time period. This action is not bared by the time limitations of <br />