13
subject,7 the legal issues raised by the motion for new trial mirrored those raised on
appeal from the anti-SLAPP order and could present an alternate route to consideration of
the merits of this case. We find, however, that the appeal from the January 23 judgment
does not enable review of the order denying a new trial, because appellants’ motion for
new trial was itself untimely and did not serve as a valid basis to extend time for filing of
the appeal under rule 8.108.
It is well-settled that an order denying a motion for new trial, while not directly
appealable, may be reviewed on appeal from the underlying judgment. (Walker v. Los
Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (2005) 35 Cal.4th 15, 19
(Walker).) Appellants point to their notice of appeal, filed on April 4, 2017, which
appealed from the judgment entered on January 23, 2017 and “from all orders relating
thereto, including and not limited to the Order denying the Motion for New Trial, entered
on March 30, 2017, and notice of it provided on April 3, 2017.”
In principle, appellants are correct that timely appeal from the underlying
judgment would enable review of the order denying the motion for new trial. (Walker,
supra, 35 Cal.4th at pp. 18-19; § 904.1, subd. (a)(2).) But appellants fail in this case to
demonstrate that their filing of the notice of appeal on April 4, 2017, was timely as from
the January 23 judgment, due to the fact that the motion for new trial was itself subject to
a strict time limit triggered not by the January 23 judgment but by the November 22
anti-SLAPP order. Our conclusion stems from the intersection of two sets of