Wiley v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 177, was an appeal from an order granting a new trial motion on the ground of juror misconduct. Appellant argued the order could not stand because the moving party failed to file a " 'no-knowledge' " declaration stating that he was not aware of the improper conduct prior to the verdict. (Id. at p. 186.) The no-knowledge filing requirement is a long-standing judicially declared rule which, although described as a mandatory requirement is subject to many exceptions. (Id. at p. 187, fn. 4.) The Wiley court held that the failure to file a no-knowledge declaration is a procedural defect which is subject to the invited error rule and can be waived by failure to object if the defect was curable. The court then concluded that the defect could have been cured had it been raised at the hearing on the new trial motion in that case. To reach this conclusion, the court acknowledged that there are strict statutory requirements for filing affidavits, but it also observed that "it has been held that the time limits for filing the affidavits in support of a new trial motion are not jurisdictional in contrast to the time limit for filing the new trial motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 659." (Id. at p. 188.)