Wage Law

The Supreme Court has reversed the Court of Appeal's dismissal of an appeal by the plaintiffs in a class action entitled Alan v. American Honda Motor Co. Inc. (2006) 131 Cal.App.4th 886. The order granting review framed the issue as follows:

The court limited review to the following issue: Did the Statement of Decision and Minute Order dated January 2, 2003, trigger the 60-day period within which to notice an appeal under California Rules of Court, rule 8.104 (formerly rule 2(a)(1))?

The Court of Appeal granted a motion to dismiss on two grounds: (i) the superior court’s order denying the motion for class certification was immediately appealable under the so-called death knell doctrine; and (ii) Alan’s notice of appeal was untimely because it came more than 60 days after the clerk mailed two documents: a file-stamped document entitled "statement of decision" which included a sentence indicating that the motion to certify was denied, and a minute order entitled "ruling on submitted matter" which was not file-stamped.

Alan argued that neither of these documents satisfied Rule 8.104(a)(1), which requires either “a document entitled ‘Notice of Entry’ ” or “a file-stamped copy of the judgment.” Honda argued that the two documents, read together, satisfied the elements of Rule 8.104(a)(1) and triggered the running of the 60 day appeal period. The Supreme Court agreed with Alan:

We granted review to decide whether the Court of Appeal properly dismissed as untimely an appeal from an order denying class certification. In dismissing, the Court of Appeal concluded the notice of appeal was untimely because certain documents the superior court had mailed to the parties to inform them of its order satisfied rule 8.104(a)(1) of the California Rules of Court and, thus, commenced the 60-day period specified in the rule for filing a notice of appeal. We hold, to the contrary, that the documents in question did not satisfy the rule and that the notice was timely filed.

Because no “document entitled ‘Notice of Entry’ ” exists, the clerk’s mailing cannot have triggered the 60-day period for noticing an appeal unless it contained “a file-stamped copy of the judgment” or appealable order. It contained no such document. The copy of the appealable minute order, was not file stamped. A notation that the minutes were entered by the clerk is not a file-stamp.

The Court noted that its order specifying the issue in this case also fairly includes the question whether rule 8.104(a)(1) requires a single, self-sufficient document that satisfies all the rule’s conditions. The parties have briefed this issue, its resolution offers an alternative basis for our decision in this case, and it has importance for future cases. Therefore, the Court addresses it:

We conclude that rule 8.104(a)(1) does indeed require a single document—either a “Notice of Entry” so entitled or a file-stamped copy of the judgment or appealable order—that is sufficient in itself to satisfy all of the rule’s conditions, including the requirement that the document itself show the date on which it was mailed. That having been said, we see no reason why the clerk could not satisfy the single-document requirement by attaching a certificate of mailing to the file-stamped judgment or appealable order, or to a document entitled “Notice of Entry.” Obviously a document can have multiple pages. But the rule does not require litigants to glean the required information from multiple documents or to guess, at their peril, whether such documents in combination trigger the duty to file a notice of appeal. Neither parties nor appellate courts should be required to speculate about jurisdictional time limits.

Because Alan's appeal was filed less than 60 days after the first document triggering the 60-day deadline, the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal. You can download Alan v. American Honda here in pdf or Word format.