1 Unspecified statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.
subd. (a)(13)), that appellants’ appeal as to the order on the anti-SLAPP motions was
untimely. We similarly conclude that the challenge to the denial of the new trial motion
is not cognizable on appeal from the judgment of dismissal, because the motion for new
trial was itself untimely and did not serve as a valid basis to extend time for filing of the
appeal under California Rules of Court, rule 8.108.2 Because the time limits at issue in
both instances are jurisdictional, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction to consider the
challenged orders and so we dismiss the appeal.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The present case for malicious prosecution is based on a prior action brought by
Kruger against Reyes for unlawful detainer (the prior action).
Reyes operated a medical marijuana outlet on commercial premises leased by
Kruger. Kruger stated that she received complaints from neighbors about the operation
and its customers, mostly related to parking issues, loitering, and littering. Kruger also
stated that the city’s code enforcement contacted her about violations on the premises and
Reyes’s noncompliance with requests for inspection. After an inspection confirmed the
code violations and revealed other unpermitted alterations to the property, Kruger began
eviction proceedings. Kruger retained new counsel after the eviction effort faltered.
A. The Prior Action for Unlawful Detainer
Kruger, represented by Rothbard, filed an unlawful detainer action against Reyes.3
Respondents served notice of the ongoing lease violations followed by a three day notice
to pay rent or quit the premises. Respondents based the three day notice on a
delinquency in rent that had accrued during the pendency of Kruger’s earlier attempt to
evict, during which time she had not accepted rent payments. According to Kruger, when