Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. 07DV00336
SIMS, Acting P. J.Appellant McWilliam O’Quinn, Jr., appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion for a new trial after the court granted respondent Sheila Stokes’s application for an order of protection against appellant. For reasons that follow, we shall dismiss the appeal as untimely.
An order denying a motion for new trial is nonappealable. (Rodriguez v. Barnett (1959) 52 Cal.2d 154, 156.) Pursuant to the rule of liberally construing a notice of appeal in favor of its sufficiency (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.100(a)(2)), however, we construe appellant’s notice as attempting to perfect an appeal from the order of protection filed and served on appellant in open court on March 15, 2007.
Generally, an appeal must be filed 60 days after a file-stamped copy of the protective order is served on the appellant and proof of service is filed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.104(a)(2).) This occurred on March 15, 2007, when the protective order was served on appellant in open court. Ordinarily, appellant’s notice of appeal had to be filed on or before May 14, 2007. Yet, because appellant filed a motion for a new trial, his time to appeal the order of protection granted by the trial court was extended to “30 days after the superior court clerk mails, or a party serves, an order denying the motion or a notice of entry of that order.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.108 (b)(1)(A).) Here, the court clerk mailed the court’s order denying appellant’s motion for a new trial on June 8, 2007. Accordingly, appellant had until July 9, 2007, to file his notice of appeal. Appellant did not file notice of appeal until August 8, 2007. Accordingly, the appeal is untimely.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
We concur: HULL, J., CANTIL-SAKAUYE, J.