Order Filed: On January 15, 2013, this court filed an order dismissing the instant appeal because of appellant's failure to designate the record on appeal and for failure to file a Civil Case Information Statement, after notice that appellant was in default. On January 24, 2013, appellant filed a motion to reinstate the appeal. The motion is DENIED without prejudice. The motion is defective for the following reasons, among others: 1) The motion purports to include appellant's notice designating the record on appeal but the notice is internally inconsistent in that appellant has failed to indicate which of the alternative methods she elects to use for the record on appeal. Instead, appellant has checked each of the three alternative forms: a clerk's transcript under rule 8.122, an appendix under rule 8.124 and the original superior court file under rule 8.128. Much of the remainder of the document, which consists of handwritten notations, is illegible. 2) The motion purports to include appellant's Case Information Statement, but the Case Information Statement is incomplete. Appellant has failed to complete section A regarding Appealability, section C regarding Bankruptcy or Other Stay, and section E regarding Service Requirements. 3) Appellant's motion to reinstate the appeal does not contain a proper proof of service. The clerk of this court is directed to include with this order a copy of Judicial Council Form APP-009-INFO "Information Sheet for Proof of Service (Court of Appeal)." Specifically, appellant's proof of service by mail on all court documents must include a statement, made under penalty of perjury, by the person doing the serving (who is not a party). Among other requirements, the proof of service also must state the name of the document being served, the server's home or business address, and the city and state from which the document is being mailed. Appellant is advised that this dismissal will become final as to this court on February 14, 2013, at which time this court will lose the power to vacate, reconsider or modify it. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.264(b)(1).)
Never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Why can’t a real attorney, with Orly’s enthusiasm, do things right on this - the most important topic in history?
As can be seen in the judge’s January 15, 2013 dismissal of Orly’s appeal for Orly’s failure to fill out the paperwork properly, the title of this thread is misleadingly incorrect.
There has been NO reinstatement of Orly’s eligibility lawsuit, only a reinstatement of Orly’s APPEAL of the dismissal. The Jan. 15 appeal dismissal would have stood had Orly not corrected all of the deficiencies in her filing of the appeal that the judge noted in comment #23.
Therefore Orly’s underlying eligibility case still stands as dismissed. Only Orly’s appeal dismissal has been reinstated.
Sadly, however, the defects in the underlying case make it almost 100% probable that Orly will lose her reinstated appeal.
Say what you will about the merits of her claim and her tenacity, but she is a horrible lawyer.
Orly:
Success = “DO IT RIGHT THE FIRST TIME”