Filed 3/4/14 ASAP Copy and Print v. Canon Business Solutions CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

ASAP COPY AND PRINT et al., B238144 Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. PC043358) v. CANON BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Stephen Pfahler, Judge. Appeal dismissed in part; remaining orders affirmed. Sanctions imposed against appellant Nina Ringgold pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 907, California Rules of Court, rule 8.276(a)(1), and In re Marriage of Flaherty (1982) 31 Cal.3d 637.

Nina Ringgold, in pro. per., and for Plaintiffs and Appellants ASAP Copy and Print and Ali Tazhibi.

Frandzel Robins Bloom & Csato, Andrew K. Alper and Alan H. Fairley, for Respondent Canon Financial Services, Inc. Dorsey & Whitney, Kent J. Schmidt and Lynnda A. McGlinn, for Respondent Canon Business Solutions, Inc. Hemar, Rousso & Heald, and Jeannine Del Monte Kowal, for Respondent General Electric Capital Corporation.

This is the fourth appeal in this case filed by ASAP Copy and Print, its owner Ali Tazhibi (collectively, ASAP), and their attorney, Nina Ringgold.1 The appeal is taken from six postjudgment orders made on August 4, August 26, October 18, November 4, and November 30, 2011. (Code Civ. Proc., § 904.1, subd. (a)(2).) We conclude appellants’ notice of appeal is untimely as to the August 4, 2011 and August 26, 2011 orders, and dismiss the appeal as to those orders. We affirm the remaining orders and impose sanctions against Ringgold pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 907, California Rules of Court, rule 8.276(a)(1), and In re Marriage of Flaherty (1982) 31 Cal.3d 637.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The long and tortured history of this case is well known to the parties and to this court. We set forth only those facts necessary to resolve this appeal.

On August 29, 2002, ASAP acquired a photocopier from Canon Business Solutions, Inc. (CBS). The acquisition was financed through a lease from Canon Financial Services, Inc. (CFS). The lease agreement also contained an assignment clause, a maintenance agreement, and a provision for an award of attorney fees in the event of litigation. Approximately three years into the lease, CFS assigned its rights under the

A dispute arose concerning ASAP’s failure to pay lease payments and its claim that respondents had breached the lease agreement. ASAP sued GE, CFS and others, asserting various contract and tort causes of action. Amended complaints and cross- complaints ensued. The action ended at the pleading stage after the trial court sustained, without leave to amend, respondents’ demurrers to ASAP’s Fourth Amended Complaint, struck a Fifth Amended Complaint ASAP filed without leave of court, and sustained, without leave to amend, respondents’ demurrers to ASAP’s First Amended Cross- Complaint. The superior court entered judgment in favor of respondents. We affirmed the judgment on June 4, 2012. (ASAP Copy and Print et al. v. Canon Business Solutions, Inc., et al. (June 4, 2012, B224295 & B225702) [nonpub. opn.].)

August 4, 2011 and August 26, 2011 orders.

The trial court had on its August 4, 2011 calendar two matters relating to previous sanction orders against Ringgold: (1) an order to show cause re: contempt directed to Ringgold or, in the alternative, sanctions against Ringgold pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 177.5; and (2) a continued judgment debtor examination of Ringgold.

Appellants had also continued to litigate the merits of a number of orders that the trial court had made in 2010 (the 2010 orders).2 The trial court had previously denied appellants’ motion to vacate the orders because they were the subject of pending appeals.

On August 2, 2011, two days prior to the order to show cause/judgment debtor hearing, appellants, in an ex parte application, renewed their requests to have the court vacate the 2010 orders. Appellants focused in particular on a March 4, 2010 protective order (erroneously referred to by appellants as a “ sealing order”) encompassing trade secret documents, which the trial court had made at the request of GE. Appellants also asked that the August 4, 2011 hearing date be “modified” (in other words, continued) to a date after the court had heard appellants’ renewed requests concerning the protective order. The trial court denied the ex parte application on August 2, 2011.

When court convened on August 4, 2011, Ringgold claimed she did not realize she was supposed to produce documents at the hearing. The trial court responded that on April 27, 2011, it had ordered Ringgold to produce documents for a judgment debtor exam, and had caused the order to be personally served on Ringgold in open court. In fact, the court read verbatim from its April 27, 2011 order.3 At the conclusion of the August 4 hearing, the trial court ordered Ringgold to pay monetary sanctions of $350 to counsel for CBS, for failing to comply with the order to produce documents. The court continued three other matters to August 25, 2011: sanctions against Ringgold for failure to produce documents pursuant to prior court orders; the order to show cause re: contempt directed to Ringgold; and Ringgold’s judgment debtor exam.

On August 26, 2011, the trial court imposed sanctions against Ringgold in the amount of $500, payable to the superior court, “on the grounds that Ms. [Ringgold] has violated the Court’s 4/27/11 order by failing to produce documents for today’s judgment debtor exam.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 177.5.) The court continued the judgment debtor exam and two orders to show cause re: contempt to November 30, 2011.

On December 19, 2011, appellants filed a notice of appeal from the August 4, 2011 and August 26, 2011 orders as postjudgment orders under Code of Civil Procedure

The notice of appeal, filed December 19, 2011, was therefore untimely.

The appeal is also untimely as to the August 26, 2011 order. The superior court directed its clerk to give notice of entry of the order, and the clerk gave notice to all parties by mail on September 15, 2011. Appellants were required to file their notice of appeal of the order within 60 days of that date, with an additional five days because notice of entry of the order was served by mail. The notice of appeal, filed December 19, 2011, was likewise untimely.

The time limits for filing a notice of appeal are jurisdictional; “once the deadline expires, the appellate court has no power to entertain the appeal.” (Van Beurden Ins.

Services, Inc. v. Customized Worldwide Weather Ins. Agency, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 51, 56; see also Janis v. California State Lottery Com. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 824, 828–829.)

This court therefore lacks jurisdiction to entertain appellants’ appeal of the August 4, 2011 and August 26, 2011 orders.

October 18, November 4, and November 30, 2011 orders.

On October 18, 2011, the trial court considered the separate motions of ASAP and Ringgold, filed August 25, 2011, to vacate the 2010 orders and unseal documents encompassed by the protective order. The motions were entitled “Second Submission Under Protest—Identical to June 21, 2010 Filing.” The trial court denied the motions, again finding that the 2010 orders were on appeal and therefore “subject to the automatic stay provision of Code of Civil Procedure section 916.” The court also found that the motions were “an improper attempt to seek reconsideration of this Court’s prior orders denying the same motion to vacate.”

On November 4, 2011, the court issued a nunc pro tunc order correcting a clerical error.

On November 30, 2011, the court issued an order continuing hearings on several matters and requesting additional briefing on various issues.5 Appellants contend the trial court abused its discretion when it concluded it could not consider the motions to vacate because the protective order was on appeal.6 We need not address appellants’ arguments as to why the automatic stay does not apply to the protective order, because we affirmed the order on June 4, 2012. Thus, any issues relating to the protective order, or the other orders encompassed by that appeal, are moot.

Sanctions.

On the motion of a party or on its own motion, this court may impose sanctions on a party for taking a “frivolous” appeal (that is, an appeal that indisputably lacks merit) or

The issue of whether an appeal “indisputably has no merit” is resolved under an objective standard. ‘“The objective standard looks at the merits of the appeal from a reasonable person’s perspective. ‘The problem involved in determining whether the appeal is or is not frivolous is not whether [the attorney] acted in the honest belief he had grounds for appeal, but whether any reasonable person would agree that the point is totally and completely devoid of merit, and, therefore frivolous.’” (In re Marriage of Flaherty, supra, 31 Cal.3d at p. 649, citation omitted.)

Ringgold, on behalf of herself and ASAP, filed a notice of appeal from six orders that purported to be postjudgment orders pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1, subdivision (a)(2). The notice of appeal was untimely as to the August 4 and August 26, 2011 orders. Two others (the November 4 and November 30, 2011 orders) were simply ministerial, not substantive, and did not meet the requirements for appealable postjudgment orders. (Lakin v. Watkins Associated Industries (1993) 6 Cal.4th 644, 651–652.)

The appeal of the October 18, 2011 order is the most egregious. The substance of the appeal is a challenge to the March 4, 2010 protective order, which, as the trial court correctly noted, was automatically stayed because the order was on appeal. On June 4, 2012, we affirmed the judgment in favor of respondents and all the orders that were on appeal at that time, including the March 4, 2010 protective order.7 Yet, more than five months later, Ringgold filed an opening brief in which she challenged the validity of the protective order, including an argument that the order violated appellants’ right to due process because it prevented ASAP from pursuing a case that had already been dismissed

DISPOSITION The appeal is dismissed as to the orders of August 4 and 26, 2011. The remaining orders are affirmed.

Ringgold is directed to pay sanctions in the amount of $8,000, as follows: $5,000 payable to the Clerk of this court, $2,000 payable to counsel for respondent Canon Financial Services, Inc., and $1,000 payable to counsel for respondent Canon Business Solutions, Inc. The sanctions are to be paid within 30 days of the date this court issues its remittitur. Failure to pay the sanctions will result in this court issuing an order to show cause re: contempt.

Upon issuance of the remittitur, the Clerk of this court is directed to transmit a copy of this opinion to the State Bar of California for consideration of discipline against Ringgold. Ringgold is likewise directed to transmit a copy of the opinion to the State Bar. (Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 6068, subd. (o)(3), 6086.7, subd. (a)(c).)

Appellants’ motion to unseal records lodged conditionally under seal is denied.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

_____________________, P. J.

BOREN We concur:

__________________________, J. ________________________, J.

ASHMANN-GERST CHAVEZ