Filed 9/22/26 Williams v. Love 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or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
SHAWNY K. WILLIAMS, as Trustee,
etc.,
Plaintiff and Respondent, A174838
v.
SHANDA LOVE et al., (City & County of San Francisco
Defendants and Appellants. Super. Ct. No. CUD-23-671-215)
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
In this unlawful detainer action, Shanda Love, Mashama Nolan, and
Shannon Williams (collectively, “Love”) seek to appeal from the trial court’s
order releasing funds held in the court’s registry to Shawny K. Williams
(“Williams”), as Trustee of the Williams Calderon Trust. We dismiss the
appeal as untimely.
Under California Rules of Court, rule 8.104(a)(1), unless an extension
was applicable, Love had 60 days from the date she was served with a copy of
the order in which to file her notice of appeal. After the trial court issued its
August 6, 2025 order, Williams served Love with a notice of entry of the
order, placing a copy of the order in the mail on August 7, 2025. Love had
until October 6 to file the notice of appeal. (See InSyst, Ltd. v. Applied
1 We resolve this case by a memorandum opinion pursuant to
California Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1.
1
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].
Love did not file the notice of appeal until October 14, 2025, however.
Because Love filed a motion for reconsideration, we consider whether
the filing of the motion extended the appeal deadline. 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).”2 (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].)
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.) 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.” The movant for reconsideration “shall state by affidavit what
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 v. Home Sav. of Am. (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1192,
1200.)
Due to a deficiency in Love’s filings, she filed reconsideration motions
on August 7, August 15, and August 22, 2025. The only reconsideration
motion Love included in our record on appeal, filed on August 22, was not
filed within the 10-day period required in section 1008, subdivision (a), and
was therefore not valid. (See Rowan v. Kirkpatrick (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th
289, 296 (Rowan) [explaining that an untimely reconsideration motion is not
2 Undesignated statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.
2
valid and does not extend the time to appeal under California Rules of Court,
rule 8.108(e)].)
Even assuming that the filing of the first two timely but deficient
motions served to render the August 22 motion timely, the reconsideration
motion was not valid because it failed to comply with the requirements for an
affidavit in section 1008, subdivision (a). The barebones affidavit
accompanying Love’s August 22 motion did not assert “what new or different
facts, circumstances, or law [we]re claimed to be shown.” (See Rowan, supra,
54 Cal.App.5th at 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”].)
Because Love’s motion to reconsider was not valid, it did not extend the
time for appeal. As the notice of appeal was filed after the October 6, 2025
deadline, her appeal is untimely and we lack jurisdiction over the appeal.
(See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.104(b).)
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
Burns, J.
WE CONCUR:
Simons, Acting P. J.
Chou, J.
A174838/Williams v. Love
3