Jurisdictional deadlines are unforgiving, and increasingly, the reliability of court service practices has become as critical as the rules themselves. In the Court of Appeal's recently published decision in Wing Inflatables, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, the court rejected an attempt to dismiss an appeal as untimely, finding that the clerk's electronic service via email of a file-endorsed order did not meet the strict requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 8.104(a)(1)(A). The decision clarified what it means for a document to "show" the date of service, consistent with rule 8.104(a)(1)(A), and reaffirms the "single document" requirement, as established by the California Supreme Court in Alan v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.
Case Background
After the superior court denied Wing Inflatables' motion for costs and attorney fees, the clerk emailed the parties a file-endorsed copy of the order with a brief message: "Please see the attached Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees." Wing filed its notice of appeal nearly four months later.
Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's moved to dismiss Wing's appeal, arguing that Wing filed its notice of appeal beyond the 60-day deadline set by California Rules of Court, rule 8.104(a)(1)(A). Lloyd's position was that the 60-day period began when the superior court electronically served the Notice of Entry of the order. Wing countered that the clerk’s email did not trigger the 60-day period because it did not meet the requirement of the rule that the file-endorsed copy of the order “show [] the date [it] was served.” It argued that a proper certificate of service, signed and containing specific statutory information, was required, and that the same needed to be included with the same document reflecting the appealable order, so as to comply with the single document requirement. Wing argued that, since these prerequisites for triggering the 60-day deadline were absent, the 180-day period to appeal applied, pursuant to rule 8.104(a)(1)(C). Lloyd's responded that subdivision (a)(1)(A) does not explicitly require a “proof of service” for clerk-served documents, unlike subdivision (a)(1)(B) for party service.
The court agreed with Wing, but only in part. It held that the clerk's service did not comply with the statutory "showing the date" requirement. Specifically, while a clerk need not prepare and attach a “proof of service,” the clerk must include a signed certificate of service that is either attached to, stamped on, or embedded in the served document itself to trigger the 60-day deadline. (M'Guinness v. Johnson (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 602, 612.) This ensures the date of service can be determined from a single, self-contained record, without requiring parties to cross-reference multiple filings or email records. (Alan v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 894, 905.)
The Statutory Framework for Electronic Service
Rule 8.104(a)(2) incorporates Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6, which authorizes electronic service by a court clerk, and expressly references Rule 2.251 governing "Electronic Service by or on Court." Rule 2.251(j)(1) mandates that proof of electronic service be made "as provided in Code of Civil Procedure section 1013b."
Section 1013b sets out two permissible forms of proof: an affidavit or a certificate. For court clerks, subdivision (a)(4) requires a certificate stating the exact title of the document served, the name of the clerk, and the court's name. Subdivision (c) directs that proof of service be signed in accordance with section 1010.6(E)(2)(B). Although a clerk's certificate is not sworn under penalty of perjury, it must still be signed to be valid. (Aquino v. Superior Court (2021) 73 Cal.App.5th 104, 110.) Since the clerk's email in this case lacked a signature, it could not qualify as a valid certificate of service and could not "show" the date of service, as required under rule 8.104(a)(1)(A).
Alan's Single Document Rule
Even if the clerk's email had included a proper signature and the required statutory details, the court concluded it still would not have triggered the 60-day deadline because it violated Alan's single document rule. In Alan, the Supreme Court held that, to start the appeal clock, the Notice of Entry or file-stamped copy of the appealable order must be a single, self-sufficient document that, on its face, shows the date it was served. The court reasoned that parties should not have to consult multiple documents to determine the appeal deadline.
The court here extended this principle to electronic service. If determining the service date requires looking at both a transmittal email and an attached order, the rule is not satisfied. Even the common superior court practice of sending a file-endorsed order and a separate certificate of service in the same email do not comply. The certificate must be attached to, stamped on, or embedded in the served document itself.
The Wing order confirms that the 60-day appeal deadline in rule 8.104(a)(1)(A) is triggered only when the superior court clerk serves a single, self-contained Notice of Entry or file-endorsed order that includes an integrated, signed certificate of service showing the date of service. The ruling harmonizes California's rules and statutes governing electronic service with longstanding precedent and closes potential loopholes created by modern service practices. This opinion also suggests it may be time to amend rule 8.104(a)(1)(A) to clarify the phrase "showing the date…served" so that it aligns with sections 1010.6 and 1013b, and explicitly incorporates Alan's single document requirement.
Broader Implications
Beyond its narrow holding, in practice, the Wing decision appears to be more than just a case about the meaning of "showing the date" in electronic service. It has the potential to influence broader superior court practices that can lead to confusion and overlooked service attempts. For example, some superior courts will serve documents solely by email and only on one attorney per party and/or firm. In a world where service is increasingly completed by electronic means only, this practice creates risks of missed deadlines when the sole recipient is unavailable, overlooks the email, or when the message is diverted to a spam folder. While Wing does not directly address this service gap, its insistence on clarity, formality, and adherence to strict proof-of-service requirements could prompt a shift toward more reliable service practices by the courts.
Best Practices Moving Forward
Pending any adjustments to the foregoing discussed court practices, Wing also highlights best practices that can be taken to increase the probability that service attempts are ineffective:
- Designating Multiple Recipients: Where possible, file notices with the court identifying all attorneys to receive service, and confirm those names appear on the court’s electronic service list.
- Proper Maintenance of Spam Folders and Filters: Proactively approve court domains and electronic filing service providers, and test delivery to ensure notices are not diverted to junk folders.
- Daily Service Log Checks: Assign staff to check the court's electronic docket daily for new filings or minute orders, regardless of whether an email notice was received.
- Internal Service Protocols: Require that any attorney receiving a court notice immediately forward it to a designated case team or docketing clerk. In the event that an attorney receives a court notice for a case that is either not assigned to them or no longer assigned to them, encourage them to reach out to someone internally to clarify who is working that case and forward the email as soon as possible.
Wing may not, itself, solve the rising "single recipient" email issue, but it strengthens the argument for higher service standards, which is an incremental step toward a system where jurisdictional deadlines are safeguarded by the kind of "bright line" rules regarding service for which the Supreme Court urged due consideration.
