Notice of Appeal Period After Denial of Motion for a New Trial
The question is whether the 90-day provision of rule 3(b) can shorten the 60-day period of rule 2(a).
In Brice v. Dept. of Alcoholic Bev. Control (1957) 153 Cal. App. 2d 315 [314 P.2d 807], the court held the 60-day period of rule 2(a) was not shortened by rule 3(a)(1) (now rule 3(a)), which provided " 'if the motion [for a new trial] is denied, the time for filing the notice of appeal from the judgment is extended for all parties until 30 days after either entry of the order denying the motion or denial thereof by operation of law.' " (153 Cal. App. 2d at p. 319.)
The court explained "rule 3(a)(1) operates only to extend the time in which to appeal, and never to cut down the time provided by rule 2(a)." (153 Cal. App. 2d at p. 320.)
In Carpiaux v. Peralta Community College Dist. (1989) 215 Cal. App. 3d 1220 [264 Cal. Rptr. 208], the court held the 180-day period of rule 2(a) was not shortened by rule 3(d)'s provision that a notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of entry of an order denying a motion for a new trial or its denial by operation of law, where the appealing party has moved both for a new trial and for entry of a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and the court does not decide the motions within 60 days after the filing of the notice of intention to move for a new trial. "By the terms of . . . rules 2 and 3, rule 3 extends applicable time limits.
The clear import of the two rules, read together, is that there is an outside time limit of 180 days, and that any applicable shorter time limit may be extended by rule 3 up to, but not beyond the 180-day limitation." (215 Cal. App. 3d at p. 1223.)