What does the term "valid" mean?

In Branner v. Regents of the University of California, 2009 WL 2026326, the Yolo County Superior Court granted in part and denied in part an anti-SLAPP motion.  The order was immediately appealable but the plaintiff chose to file a motion for reconsideration.  Not only did the plaintiff file an appeal from an order on the anti-SLAPP motion, but he filed one as well from the denial of the motion for reconsideration.  Defendant Regents filed a cross-appeal from that part of the order denying the anti-SLAPP motion.

Defendant Regents brought a motion to dismiss the appeal from the anti-SLAPP motion, claiming the motion for reconsideration was invalid because it was not supported by an affidavit or declaration of counsel.   Plaintiff's attorney failed to include a declaration with the motion, but added it to his reply, simply stating he did not believe the Regents would be prejudiced by the late filing of the declaration.

As to the extension of time to appeal as the result of filing a motion to reconsider, California Rules of Court, rule 8.108(e) requires that the motion be "valid."  While rule 8.108 does not define the term "valid," the court interpreted it to mean "only that the motion or notice complies with all procedural requirements; it does not mean that the motion or notice must also be substantively meritorious."  (Opn., pg. 5.)  A motion for reconsideration brought pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. section 1008(a) must include a declaration or affidavit that states certain facts.  The  declaration eventually submitted with the reply failed to satisfy this requirement.    Thus, the motion was invalid because it failed to comply with statutory procedural requirements.

It didn't help plaintiff that a declaration was submitted after the motion was filed, the appellate court rejecting the "piecemeal filing of a motion."  (Opn., pg. 7.)  The language was especially colorful:

"A straightforward reading of this language [in CRC rule 8.108(e)] suggests that a single, complete, valid motion must be filed -- not one that is later assembled from constituent parts like some Frankenstein monster."

(Ibid.) To allow a piecemeal filing the court noted would "undermine the jurisdictional nature of the appellate time period by permitting the extension of that period based on the mistake or inadvertence of counsel." (Opn., pg. 8.)  Thus, the motion must be valid when it is initially filed.

But the fun never stops.  Because plaintiff's first notice of appeal was untimely, that meant that the Regents cross-appeal was also untimely under CRC, rule 8.104(a) [the time period for filing a cross-appeal is extended by a timely notice of appeal].

That left the court with plaintiff's second appeal from the denial of a motion for reconsideration.  First, and it bears repeating here, the court noted that a motion to reconsider is not valid if it is filed after the final judgment is signed.  (Opn., pg. 6.)  Too many attorneys have ignored this rule.  But the court noted inconsistent authority as to whether the denial of a motion for reconsideration is appealable.  The prevailing view, one to which the court subscribed, was that a motion for reconsideration is not appealable.  (Opn., 10.)

Since the original order was to deny the anti-SLAPP motion in part, then perhaps the plaintiff had a few causes of action left to litigate.