Subsequent Judgment Was Not Materially Substantial So As To Trigger New Appeal Time Commencement.
Darden Painting, Inc. v. Glass Architects, Case No. A132846 (1st Dist., Div. 2 July 9, 2013) (unpublished) is a case where a litigant challenging certain costs ruling was pretty much shut out on procedural grounds–failure to timely appeal. What happened is that the aggrieved litigant only timely appealed from a modified judgment, but not the original judgment. That was a mistake, because a modified judgment begins a new appeal period only if it contains a substantial modification of the original judgment. (Torres v. City of San Diego, 154 Cal.App.4th 214, 222 (2007).) This situation did not occur here, such that litigant’s failure to appeal the original judgment was damning in nature.