55 Cal.App.5th 58
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- Reyes operated a medical-marijuana business leased from Kruger; Kruger sued Reyes in unlawful detainer alleging unpaid rent and lease violations. The trial court credited Kruger’s testimony that she had returned a $2,800 payment in cash and entered judgment for Kruger.
- The appellate division reversed the unlawful detainer judgment, finding the three-day notice was premature because Reyes had timely paid rent.
- Reyes subsequently sued Kruger (and Kruger’s attorney Rothbard) for wrongful eviction, then filed a malicious-prosecution complaint after a prior wrongful-eviction suit was stricken under the anti-SLAPP statute.
- Kruger and Rothbard won anti-SLAPP motions; the trial court issued a written order granting the special motions to strike on November 22, 2016, and a judgment of dismissal was entered January 23, 2017.
- Reyes filed a notice of intent to move for a new trial on February 2, 2017 (after the January 23 judgment), the motion was denied March 30, 2017, and Reyes appealed on April 14, 2017 from the January 23 judgment and related orders.
- The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding (1) the November 22 order granting the anti-SLAPP motions was an immediately appealable order and Reyes’ appeal of that order was untimely, and (2) Reyes’ new-trial notice was untimely and therefore could not validate an extension to appeal under rule 8.108.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court may review the trial court’s November 22, 2016 order granting anti-SLAPP motions via appeal from the later January 23 judgment | Reyes argued the January 23 judgment was the operative appealable order and the appeal from it preserves review of the anti-SLAPP ruling | Kruger argued the anti-SLAPP order was immediately appealable and plaintiffs failed to timely appeal that order | Court held the November 22 anti-SLAPP order was immediately appealable; Reyes’ appeal of that order was untimely, so the court lacked jurisdiction to review it |
| Whether the January 23 judgment converted the November 22 order into a non-appealable interim ruling | Reyes argued the later judgment was more definitive and should be treated as the operative appealable disposition | Kruger contended the November 22 order was final as to the special motions and the later judgment merely formalized that ruling | Court held the January 23 judgment merely recapitulated the November 22 final anti-SLAPP order; the November 22 order was appealable when issued |
| Whether a notice of intention to move for new trial filed Feb 2, 2017 was “valid” under rule 8.108 and could extend the appeal deadline | Reyes relied on rule 8.108 to extend the time to appeal from the January 23 judgment because she filed a notice of intent to move for new trial | Kruger argued the new-trial notice was untimely under § 659 (triggered by service of the Nov 22 order) and so was not a “valid” notice for rule 8.108 | Court held the new-trial notice was untimely because the Nov 22 appealable order triggered the § 659 15-day deadline; thus rule 8.108 did not extend the appeal time |
| Whether the order denying the new trial can be reviewed on appeal from the January 23 judgment despite the untimely new-trial notice | Reyes argued that a timely appeal from the judgment would permit review of the new-trial denial | Kruger argued the new-trial motion was jurisdictionally defective, so no extension or appellate review was available via the judgment appeal | Court held review of the new-trial denial was not cognizable because the new-trial notice was jurisdictionally untimely and could not validate the appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Parrish v. Latham & Watkins, 3 Cal.5th 767 (definition of interim adverse judgment rule in malicious prosecution)
- Maughan v. Google Technology, Inc., 143 Cal.App.4th 1242 (order granting anti-SLAPP motion is appealable when made)
- Russell v. Foglio, 160 Cal.App.4th 653 (failure to appeal anti-SLAPP order forfeits review)
- Melbostad v. Fisher, 165 Cal.App.4th 987 (anti-SLAPP order is final and appealable; later judgment does not revive appellate rights)
- Kabran v. Sharp Memorial Hospital, 2 Cal.5th 330 (timing for new-trial notice is jurisdictional)
- Palmer v. GTE California, Inc., 30 Cal.4th 1265 (service of written notice of entry of judgment triggers § 659 time limit)
- Walker v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, 35 Cal.4th 15 (order denying new trial reviewable on appeal from underlying judgment)
- Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino, 35 Cal.4th 180 (granting an anti-SLAPP motion results in dismissal of a cause of action)
- Hollister Convalescent Hosp., Inc. v. Rico, 15 Cal.3d 660 (strict adherence to statutory appeal deadlines)