In Meinhardt v. City of Sunnyvale (2024) 16 Cal.5th 643 (“Meinhardt”), the California Supreme Court resolved a split in authorities over a procedural matter that will give CEQA litigants some certainty about when an appeal must be filed.

When a party loses their case in a California superior court they are entitled to appeal by right, but they must file the appeal in a timely manner. The time to appeal can be triggered by, among other things, serving a file-endorsed copy of the judgement on all parties. (Cal Rules of Court, Rule 8.104(a)(1)(A), (B).)

While the filing constituting the judgment is typically clear, writ cases can be somewhat confusing, as Meinhardt itself illustrates. The superior court filed and then served an “ORDER” containing its factual and legal rulings, stating that the petition for writ of administrative mandamus was denied. The following month the parties signed and submitted to the court a document entitled “JUDGMENT” summarizing the order and containing a signature line for the judge to enter judgment. The Court signed the judgment, and it too was served on all of the parties. David Meinhardt (“Meinhardt”) appealed within the statutory time limit if measured from service of the judgment, but he was untimely if the prior order started the clock. As CEQA cases are filed as writs as well, this ambiguity also exists in CEQA litigation.

It might seem obvious that the document entitled judgment would be the judgment for purposes of appealability. However, the City of Sunnyvale (“City”) argued that prior order met all criteria to be considered a judgment as well, and pointed out that the California Rules of Court state that the earliest served judgment begins the time to appeal. It also noted that judgment is defined to mean the final determination of the rights of the parties, and includes “appealable orders.” 

Though the Court of Appeal agreed with the City, the California Supreme Court reversed that decision. While it recognized case law supporting both sides, it found the applicable statutory framework to indicate that orders granting or denying a writ are not appealable, and that only the subsequent judgment is appealable. Further, the Court found this view to further the goal of providing litigants with clarity about this important issue. A contrary interpretation would make appellants undertake a case-by-case analysis to guess whether their duty to appeal has been triggered. Therefore, it held that only the subsequent judgment triggers the time to appeal.

While the holding is limited, it provides certainty to litigants. The document entitled judgment is the judgment for appeal purposes, starting the clock for appeals. Earlier orders remain interlocutory and unappealable.