Filed 8/20/26 Breja v. Breja CA1/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on
opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule
8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for
purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
NEHA DUA BREJA,
Plaintiff and Respondent, A173268
v. (City and County of San Francisco
SIDDHARTH BREJA, Super. Ct. No. FDI-21-795427)
Defendant and Appellant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
Siddharth Breja seeks to appeal from the trial court’s post-
judgment order modifying his child support obligation. (See Code
Civ. Proc. § 904.1, subd. (a)(2)2.) We dismiss his appeal as
untimely.
Under California Rules of Court, rule 8.104(a)(1), unless an
extension was applicable, Breja had 60 days from the date he was
served with a copy of the order in which to file his notice of
appeal. After the trial court issued its January 28, 2025
modification order, the San Francisco Department of Child
Support Services served Breja by placing a copy of the order in
the mail on February 3, 2025. As a result, the 60-day period
1 We resolve this case by a memorandum opinion pursuant
to California Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1.
2 Undesignated statutory references are to the Code of Civil
Procedure.
1
expired on April 4, 2025. (See InSyst, Ltd. v. Applied Materials,
Inc. (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1129, 1134-1135 [explaining that the
60-day period in which to file an appeal “begins on the date of
mailing and does not depend upon the party’s actual receipt” of
the triggering document]. However, Breja did not file his notice
of appeal until April 15, 2025.
We next consider whether Breja’s time to appeal was
subject to an applicable extension. California Rules of Court, rule
8.108(e), extends the time to appeal “[i]f any party serves and
files a valid motion to reconsider an appealable order under Code
of Civil Procedure section 1008, subdivision (a).” (See Cal. Rules
of Court, rule 8.108(e)(1) [extending the time to appeal to 30 days
from the date of service of the denial of the motion to reconsider].)
Breja did file a motion to reconsider, which the trial court denied
on April 7, 2025, so the question is whether it was a “valid” one
and therefore served to extend his time to appeal.
To be “valid” for purposes of California Rules of Court, rule
8.108(e), a motion to reconsider must comply with all procedural
requirements for such motions. (See Branner v. Regents of Univ.
of California (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1043, 1047-1048 (Branner).)
Section 1008, subdivision (a), provides that a party affected
by a court’s decision on an application for an order “may, within
10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of
the order and based upon new or different facts, circumstances,
or law, make application . . . to reconsider the matter and modify,
amend, or revoke the prior order.” In addition to pointing to new
or different facts, circumstances, or law, the movant must also
demonstrate diligence by providing an explanation for failing to
rely on the new or different facts, circumstances, or law in the
original application. (See Baldwin v. Home Sav. of Am. (1997) 59
Cal.App.4th 1192, 1197-1200 (Baldwin); California Corr. Peace
Officers Assn. v. Virga (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 30, 48.) Also, the
movant for reconsideration “shall state by affidavit what
2
application was made before, when and to what judge, what order
or decisions were made, and what new or different facts,
circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown.” (§ 1008, subd.
(a).) These requirements are jurisdictional. (See Baldwin, at p.
1200.)
Here, Breja’s reconsideration motion was invalid because
our record reflects that it did not include the required affidavit.
(See Rowan v. Kirkpatrick (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 289, 296-297
[concluding that appellant’s motion for reconsideration was not
“valid” under Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.108(e) “because it was
not supported by an affidavit setting forth new or different facts,
circumstances, or law”]; Branner, supra, 175 Cal.App.4th at pp.
1048, 1049 [holding that Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.108(e) did not
extend the time to appeal where the appellant’s “motion [to
reconsider] was invalid when filed because it failed to comply
with the statutory procedural requirement that the motion
contain [an] affidavit”].)3 His reconsideration motion also omitted
any explanation for why he could not have cited his new or
different facts, circumstances, or law in his original application.
(See Baldwin, supra, 59 Cal.App.4th at p. 1200.)
Because Breja’s motion to reconsider was not valid, it did
not extend the time for filing his appeal. As his notice of appeal
was filed after the April 4, 2025 deadline, his appeal is untimely.
We therefore lack jurisdiction over his appeal. (See Cal. Rules of
3 Subsequently, Breja filed a declaration in support of his
reply on his motion for reconsideration, but under California
Rules of Court, rule 8.108(e), the motion must be valid at the
time it is served and filed, so the subsequent filing of an affidavit
does not cure the defect. (See Branner, supra, 175 Cal.App.4th at
pp. 1048-1049.) In any event, the contents of the subsequent
declaration did not satisfy the requirements for the affidavit
enumerated in Code of Civil Procedure section 1008, subdivision
(a).
3
Court, rule 8.104(b); Silverbrand v. Cnty. of Los Angeles (2009) 46
Cal.4th 106, 113.)
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
BURNS, J.
WE CONCUR:
SIMONS, ACTING P. J.
CHOU, J.
Breja v. Breja (A173268)
4