October 2, 2020

Reyes v. Kruger (2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 58

Plaintiffs sued for malicious prosecution. The trial court granted defendants’ motions to strike the complaint under California’s anti-SLAPP statute and then entered a judgment of dismissal. The trial court also denied plaintiffs’ subsequent motion for new trial.

Plaintiffs appealed from the judgment of dismissal and from the denial of their motions for new trial, but did not appeal from the order granting the anti-SLAPP motions. The Court of Appeal dismissed plaintiffs’ appeal. First, the court held that because the order granting the anti-SLAPP motion was independently appealable, plaintiffs were required to timely appeal from that order, and could not challenge it as part of an appeal from the judgment. Second, the court concluded that plaintiffs’ challenge to the anti-SLAPP ruling could not be reached by reviewing the denial of plaintiffs’ new trial motion on appeal from the judgment because the timeliness of that appeal depended on the extension of time granted by the new trial motion. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule. 8.108.) Here, however, the motion for new trial was untimely, having been filed more than 15 days after notice of entry of the order granting the anti-SLAPP motion, and therefore did not extend the time for filing the notice of appeal from the judgment.

The situation described in this case has been the subject of discussion in the case law and treatises. (See Eisenberg, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Appeals and Writs (The Rutter Group 2019) ¶ ¶ 2:135.11-2.135.12.) It is a genuine trap for the unwary and underscores the importance of ensuring that a timely appeal is taken from all separately appealable orders in a case.