August 31, 2020

Marshall v. Webster (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 275

In an opinion highlighting traps for the unwary surrounding the jurisdictional deadline to file a notice of appeal, the Court of Appeal recently dismissed an appeal challenging the granting of an anti-SLAPP motion as untimely.

A reporter who was sued for defamation filed an anti-SLAPP motion seeking dismissal of the complaint. On May 11, 2018, the court issued its order granting the motion. The same day, the clerk served a signed, file-endorsed copy of the order on the parties. On June 29, 2018, defendant submitted a proposed order, which was signed by the court and filed that same day. On August 9, 2018, the plaintiffs moved for reconsideration. On October 25, 2018, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal challenging the granting of the anti-SLAPP motion.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to rule on the merits of the case because plaintiffs failed to timely file their notice of appeal within 60 days of the original May 11 order granting the motion. California Rules of Court, rule 8.104 provides that a notice of appeal must be filed on or before the earlier of 60 days after service by the clerk of a filed-endorsed copy of the judgment, or 60 days after the notice of entry of judgment is served by a party. The court held the May 11 order was a final judgment that triggered the rule 8.104 deadline because it set forth the factual and legal basis for the order and the clerk served a filed-endorsed copy of the order the same day, making the appeal deadline no later than July 10, 2018.

The plaintiffs argued that their August 9 reconsideration motion extended the deadline because that motion was timely filed 10 days after the “formal” June 29 order. The court rejected that argument, holding that the May 11 order, not the June 29 order, was the appealable judgment because it disposed of all the claims with prejudice. The court further held that, because the trial court lost jurisdiction to decide a motion for reconsideration when it entered and served the May 11 order, that motion could not extend the appeal deadline.

This opinion underscores the importance of correctly identifying the appealable judgment or order in your case when calculating jurisdictional deadlines.