## Facts

- Keith Alan sued American Honda Motor Co., Inc., alleging Honda concealed or misrepresented the need for periodic timing-belt replacement and sought relief under consumer-protection statutes on behalf of a proposed class of vehicle owners.
- The superior court denied Alan’s motion to certify a nationwide class, concluding individual issues—particularly detrimental reliance—predominated.
- On January 2, 2003, the superior court clerk mailed (in one envelope) a file-stamped “Statement of Decision Re: Alan’s Motion for Class Certification” and a non-file-stamped minute order reflecting the ruling and the mailing date.
- On January 21, 2003, Honda served a document titled “Notice of Entry of Order and Statement of Decision Denying Class Certification.”
- Alan filed a notice of appeal on March 6, 2003 (63 days after the clerk’s mailing; 44 days after Honda’s service).
- The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as untimely, finding the clerk’s January 2 mailing triggered the 60-day deadline.

## Issues

1. Whether the clerk’s January 2 mailing of a file-stamped statement of decision and an accompanying minute order satisfied Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.104(a)(1) so as to start the 60-day time to appeal from the order denying class certification.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of California reversed the dismissal of the appeal.
- The clerk’s January 2 mailing did not satisfy rule 8.104(a)(1) and therefore did not start the 60-day appeal period.
- The 60-day period began when Honda served its expressly titled “notice of entry” on January 21.
- Because Alan filed the notice of appeal within 60 days of January 21, the appeal was timely, and the matter was remanded for consideration of the merits of the appeal from the class-certification denial.

## Legal Principles

- Under Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.104(a)(1), the 60-day jurisdictional time to appeal is triggered only by: (1) the clerk’s mailing of a document that is a “notice of entry” or a file-stamped copy of the judgment/appealable order, or (2) a party’s service of a document entitled “notice of entry” or a file-stamped copy of the judgment/appealable order.
- Documents that explain or memorialize a ruling (e.g., a statement of decision or an unlabeled minute order) do not trigger the deadline unless they clearly qualify as a “notice of entry” or a file-stamped copy of the appealable judgment/order within the meaning of the rule.
- Triggering events for jurisdictional appellate deadlines are construed to require clear, explicit notice; ambiguous clerk mailings that do not comply with the rule’s specified forms do not start the appeal clock.

## Conclusion

The court held that a clerk’s mailing of a file-stamped statement of decision and an accompanying minute order, without a clear “notice of entry” or file-stamped copy of the appealable order, does not commence the 60-day period to appeal; the appeal period began only upon service of a properly titled notice of entry, making Alan’s appeal timely.


Alan v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 152 P.3d 1109 (Cal. 2007)