You have no items in your shopping cart.
Search
Filters

California Civil Writ Practice

Get a thorough understanding of all aspects of preparing, filing, or opposing a writ petition.

Get a thorough understanding of all aspects of preparing, filing, or opposing a writ petition.

  • Superior Court Writ Practice
    • Traditional mandate versus administrative mandamus
    • Initiating superior court writ proceedings and responsive pleadings
    • Preparing the record
    • Action by superior court and challenging the decision
    • Enforcing writs
  • Appellate and Supreme Court Writ Practice
    • Availability of appellate writ relief
    • Initiating writ proceeding in court of appeal and oppositions
    • Requesting a stay
    • Review of court of appeal’s decision
    • Petitions in the California Supreme Court
OnLAW CP94880

Web access for one user.

 

If you are signed in and a new attorney, your adjusted cost appears below.

$ 375.00
Print CP33880

4th edition, 2 looseleaf volumes, updated 1/18

 

If you are signed in and a new attorney, your adjusted cost appears below.

$ 375.00
Add Forms CD to Print CP23887
$ 99.00
Add OnLAW to print CP94880(40)
$ 129.00

Get a thorough understanding of all aspects of preparing, filing, or opposing a writ petition.

  • Superior Court Writ Practice
    • Traditional mandate versus administrative mandamus
    • Initiating superior court writ proceedings and responsive pleadings
    • Preparing the record
    • Action by superior court and challenging the decision
    • Enforcing writs
  • Appellate and Supreme Court Writ Practice
    • Availability of appellate writ relief
    • Initiating writ proceeding in court of appeal and oppositions
    • Requesting a stay
    • Review of court of appeal’s decision
    • Petitions in the California Supreme Court

1

Overview of Superior Court Writ Practice

The Hon. Kathleen M. Banke

  • I.  INTRODUCTION  1.1
  • II.  TYPES OF WRITS AVAILABLE  1.2
  • III.  RULES AND PROCEDURES  1.3
  • IV.  COVERAGE OF SUPERIOR COURT WRIT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE  1.4

2

Traditional Mandate

The Hon. Kathleen M. Banke

  • I.  NATURE OF TRADITIONAL MANDATE PROCEEDINGS IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS
    • A.  Overview  2.1
    • B.  Scope of Chapter  2.2
  • II.  REQUIREMENTS FOR ISSUANCE OF TRADITIONAL MANDATE  2.3
    • A.  Statutorily Available Relief  2.4
      • 1.  Clear and Present Ministerial Duty  2.5
        • a.  Ministerial Duty Defined  2.6
        • b.  Ministerial Duty Distinguished From Discretionary Action  2.7
      • 2.  Duty to Exercise Discretion  2.8
      • 3.  Abuse of Discretion  2.9
      • 4.  Entitlement to Office  2.10
    • B.  Prerequisites for Mandate Relief  2.11
      • 1.  Substantial Beneficial Interest  2.12
        • a.  Beneficial Interest Requirement Relaxed When Public Right Is at Stake  2.13
        • b.  Loss of Beneficial Interest While Proceeding Is Pending  2.14
      • 2.  No Plain, Speedy, or Adequate Remedy at Law
        • a.  Action at Law Available  2.15
        • b.  Other Administrative Remedies Available  2.16
  • III.  ACTS AND DECISIONS SUBJECT TO CHALLENGE THROUGH TRADITIONAL MANDATE PROCEEDINGS IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS
    • A.  Acts and Decisions of Governmental Bodies and Public Officials and Employees  2.17
      • 1.  To Compel Performance of Ministerial Duty  2.18
        • a.  Governmental Body or Public Official or Employee Required to Act  2.19
        • b.  No Judgment or Discretion Exercised [Deleted]  2.20
        • c.  Statutory Act Believed to Be Unconstitutional  2.21
      • 2.  To Compel Exercise of Discretion, But Not Manner in Which Discretion Is Exercised  2.22
      • 3.  Legislative Actions Generally Not Subject to Mandate  2.23
        • a.  Exception: Legislative and Quasi-Legislative Action in Excess of Authority  2.24
        • b.  Exception: Implementation of Legislation  2.25
        • c.  Exception: Legislative Action Depriving Agency of Funds to Perform Mandatory Duty  2.26
    • B.  Actions and Decisions of Administrative Agencies  2.27
      • 1.  To Compel Agency, Official, or Employee to Perform Mandatory Duty
        • a.  Legally Required Ministerial Duties  2.28
        • b.  Statutory Duty to Issue Regulations  2.29
        • c.  Duty to Exercise Discretion  2.30
        • d.  Duty to Hold Administrative Hearing or Otherwise Comply With Administrative Review Requirements  2.31
      • 2.  To Review Quasi-Judicial Agency Decisions  2.32
        • a.  Traditional Mandate Applies When Statutory Requirements of CCP §1094.5 Not Met  2.33
        • b.  Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies  2.34
        • c.  Other Statutory Forms of Writ Review of Agency Decisions  2.35
      • 3.  To Compel Agency to Comply With Administrative Decision  2.36
      • 4.  To Review Quasi-Legislative Acts  2.37
    • C.  Decisions of Nongovernmental Corporations, Associations, and Officers  2.38
  • IV.  SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW  2.38A
    • A.  Administrative Actions
      • 1.  Review of Administrative Actions Generally  2.38B
      • 2.  Review of Factual Determinations  2.38C
      • 3.  Review of Legal Questions  2.38D
    • B.  Quasi-Legislative Actions  2.38E
    • C.  Standard of Judicial Review Specified by Statute  2.38F
    • D.  Actions Affecting Fundamental Right  2.38G
  • V.  EXAMPLES OF SPECIFIC CONTEXTS IN WHICH NONJUDICIAL ACTIONS REVIEWED BY TRADITIONAL MANDATE
    • A.  Issuance of Professional Licenses and Certificates  2.39
    • B.  DMV Suspension or Revocation  2.40
    • C.  Land Use Decisions and Issuance of Permits or Variances  2.41
    • D.  Assignment, Classification, and Discipline of Administrators, Teachers and Students
      • 1.  Administrators, and Teachers  2.42
      • 2.  Students  2.43
    • E.  Election Issues
      • 1.  Reapportionment and Redistricting Issues  2.44
      • 2.  Election Processes  2.45
      • 3.  Certification of Initiative or Referendum Petition
        • a.  Challenging Placement on Ballot  2.46
        • b.  Compelling Processing of Initiative Petition  2.47
        • c.  Pre- or Post-Election Review of Initiative  2.48
    • F.  Admission or Restoration of Right to Office  2.49
    • G.  Unions and Employee Organizations
      • 1.  Compelling Negotiation or Rights Secured by MOU  2.50
      • 2.  Compelling Arbitration  2.51
      • 3.  Holding Hearings  2.52
      • 4.  Inspecting Records  2.53
    • H.  Corporations and Corporate Officers  2.54
    • I.  Private Organizations and Associations  2.55
    • J.  Enforcement of Civil Rights  2.56
    • K.  Taxes  2.57
      • 1.  Compelling Taxation or Assessment  2.58
      • 2.  Compelling Record-Keeping and Handling Duties  2.59
      • 3.  Compelling Tax Authority to Review Claim or Hear Appeal  2.60
      • 4.  Reviewing Assessment Practices  2.61
      • 5.  Exception: Mandate Will Not Lie to Challenge Assessment  2.62
      • 6.  Exception: Mandate Will Not Lie to Prevent Collection of Property Taxes  2.63
      • 7.  Special Assessment Districts  2.63A
    • L.  Statutory Payment Obligations  2.64
    • M.  Issuance of Subpoenas  2.65
    • N.  Consideration of Claim  2.66
    • O.  Publication of Notice  2.67
    • P.  Public Records Act
      • 1.  Mandate for Denial of Disclosure  2.68
      • 2.  No Requirement of Inadequate Remedy at Law  2.69

3

Administrative Mandamus

Mitchell E. Abbott

Ginetta L. Giovinco

  • I.  SCOPE OF CHAPTER  3.1
  • II.  NATURE OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS  3.2
    • A.  Requirements for Administrative Mandamus  3.3
      • 1.  Hearing Required by Law  3.4
      • 2.  Evidence Required to Be Taken  3.5
      • 3.  Discretion Vested in Hearing Officer or Decision-Maker  3.6
    • B.  Review Generally Limited to Administrative Record  3.7
    • C.  Scope of Judicial Review in Administrative Mandamus Proceedings  3.8
      • 1.  Did the Administrative Body Proceed Without or in Excess of Jurisdiction?
        • a.  Jurisdiction Limited by Statute or Constitution  3.9
        • b.  Administrative Reconsideration or Modification of Decision  3.10
      • 2.  Was the Petitioner Provided a Fair Hearing?  3.11
      • 3.  Did the Administrative Body Prejudicially Abuse Its Discretion?  3.12
        • a.  Administrative Body Did Not Proceed as Required by Law  3.13
        • b.  Agency’s Decision Not Supported by the Findings  3.14
        • c.  Agency’s Findings Not Supported by Evidence  3.15
          • (1)  Substantial Evidence Standard  3.16
          • (2)  Independent Judgment Standard  3.17
  • III.  DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TRADITIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS PROCEEDINGS
    • A.  Nature and Fundamental Requisites of the Writs  3.18
    • B.  Filing Deadlines  3.19
  • IV.  CHOOSING BETWEEN WRIT OF TRADITIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS
    • A.  Checklist: Determining Appropriate Writ  3.20
    • B.  Pleading in the Alternative  3.21

4

Other Superior Court Writs

Mark Fogelman

  • I.  SCOPE OF CHAPTER  4.1
  • II.  WRIT OF PROHIBITION
    • A.  Description and Purpose  4.2
    • B.  Limited Scope of Review  4.3
    • C.  How Prohibition Differs From Other Primary Common Law Writs  4.4
    • D.  Applicability of Prohibition
      • 1.  Most Administrative Bodies Not Subject to Prohibition  4.5
      • 2.  Prohibition Available to Review Adjudicatory Decisions of Constitutional Statewide Agencies  4.6
      • 3.  Applicability of Prohibition to Corporations  4.7
      • 4.  Applicability of Prohibition to Persons  4.8
    • E.  Specific Requirements for Prohibition  4.9
  • III.  WRIT OF REVIEW (CERTIORARI)
    • A.  Description and Purpose  4.10
    • B.  Scope of Review  4.11
    • C.  Hearing Required  4.12
    • D.  Applicability of Writ of Review (Certiorari)
      • 1.  Most Administrative Bodies Not Subject to Review (Certiorari)  4.13
      • 2.  Most Local Agencies Not Subject to Review (Certiorari)  4.14
      • 3.  Writ of Review (Certiorari) Available to Review Adjudicatory Decisions of Constitutional Statewide Agencies  4.15
    • E.  Specific Requirements for Writ of Review (Certiorari)  4.16
  • IV.  WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
    • A.  Description and Purpose  4.17
    • B.  Habeas Corpus in Civil Cases
      • 1.  Habeas Corpus in Proceedings Involving Children
        • a.  Habeas Corpus in Child Custody Context  4.18
        • b.  Habeas Corpus in Juvenile Dependency Proceedings  4.19
        • c.  Habeas Corpus for Ineffective Assistance of Counsel in Proceedings Involving Children  4.20
      • 2.  Civil Commitment Proceedings  4.21
        • a.  Commitment Under Lanterman-Petris-Short Act  4.22
        • b.  Parental Commitment of Minor to State Hospital  4.23
        • c.  Commitment to State Hospital for Mentally Disordered  4.24
        • d.  Commitment to State Hospital for Developmentally Disabled  4.25
    • C.  Specific Requirements for Habeas Corpus  4.26
  • V.  QUO WARRANTO PROCEEDINGS  4.27
  • VI.  ENFORCEMENT OF ORDERS IN AGRICULTURAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD PROCEEDINGS  4.28
  • VII.  OTHER SUPERIOR COURT WRITS
    • A.  Attachment  4.29
    • B.  Execution, Possession, and Sale
      • 1.  Writ of Execution  4.30
      • 2.  Writ of Possession  4.31
      • 3.  Writ of Sale  4.32
    • C.  Injunction  4.33

5

Initiating a Superior Court Writ Proceeding

Mitchell E. Abbott

T. Peter Pierce

Brian D. Mabee

  • I.  SCOPE OF CHAPTER  5.1
  • II.  OVERVIEW OF SUPERIOR COURT WRIT PROCEDURES  5.2
    • A.  Applicable Statutory Authorities
      • 1.  Statutes Pertaining Specifically to Writs  5.3
      • 2.  Other Statutes Made Applicable to Writ Proceedings  5.4
      • 3.  Rules of Court  5.5
    • B.  Local Rules and Procedures  5.6
      • 1.  Local Rules  5.7
      • 2.  Unwritten Procedures  5.8
    • C.  Procedural Options: Noticed Motion or Alternative Writ  5.9
      • 1.  Noticed Motion Procedure
        • a.  Chronology of Noticed Motion Procedure  5.10
        • b.  Advantages and Disadvantages of Noticed Motion Procedure
          • (1)  No Need for Ex Parte Appearance  5.11
          • (2)  Time Savings for Court  5.12
          • (3)  Hearing on Merits Likely  5.13
          • (4)  Control Over Timing of Hearing on Merits  5.14
      • 2.  Alternative Writ Procedure
        • a.  Chronology of Alternative Writ Procedure  5.15
        • b.  Advantages and Disadvantages of Alternative Writ Procedure
          • (1)  Immediate Relief Possible  5.16
          • (2)  Early Hearing  5.17
          • (3)  Court Can Deny Alternative Writ and Dismiss Petition  5.18
      • 3.  Issuance of Peremptory Writ in First Instance Unusual  5.19
  • III.  DRAFTING THE WRIT PETITION  5.20
    • A.  Format Requirements  5.21
      • 1.  In General
        • a.  Typewritten or Printed  5.22
        • b.  Type and Size of Papers  5.23
        • c.  Margins  5.24
        • d.  Line Numbers  5.25
        • e.  Page Numbers  5.26
        • f.  Binding  5.27
        • g.  Hole Punching  5.28
        • h.  Exhibits  5.29
        • i.  Footer  5.30
      • 2.  First (Caption) Page  5.31
    • B.  Designation of Parties
      • 1.  Petitioner  5.32
      • 2.  Respondent  5.33
      • 3.  Real Party in Interest
        • a.  Determining Existence  5.34
        • b.  Right to Notice and Hearing  5.35
    • C.  Requesting Alternative Forms of Writ Relief
      • 1.  Selecting Wrong Writ Usually Not Fatal  5.36
      • 2.  Pleading and Praying for Different Forms of Writ Relief  5.37
    • D.  Contents of Petition
      • 1.  Opening Paragraph  5.38
      • 2.  Request for Stay  5.39
      • 3.  Enumerated Allegations  5.40
        • a.  Identity of Parties
          • (1)  Form: Petitioner  5.41
          • (2)  Form: Respondent  5.42
          • (3)  Form: Real Party in Interest  5.43
          • (4)  Particular Contexts
            • (a)  Form: When Petition Challenges Nonjudicial Action  5.44
            • (b)  Form: When Petitioner Is Party to Ongoing Administrative Proceeding  5.45
        • b.  Describing Challenged Action and Factual Background
          • (1)  Style for Statement of Facts  5.46
          • (2)  Using Supporting Citations  5.47
          • (3)  Relating to Legal Basis for Relief  5.48
        • c.  Describing Basis for Challenging Action  5.49
          • (1)  Specific Allegations Required for Mandate  5.50
          • (2)  Specific Allegations Required for Prohibition  5.51
          • (3)  Specific Allegations Required for Review (Certiorari)  5.52
        • d.  Absence of Adequate Legal Remedy
          • (1)  Requirement for Mandate and Prohibition  5.53
          • (2)  Form: Absence or Inadequacy of Other Remedies  5.54
        • e.  Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
          • (1)  Aspect of No-Adequate-Legal-Remedy Requirement  5.55
          • (2)  Form: Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies  5.56
        • f.  Alleging Damages if Appropriate  5.57
        • g.  Alleging Basis for Stay if Requested  5.58
        • h.  Prayer for Relief  5.59
          • (1)  Form: Types of Relief  5.60
          • (2)  Form: Costs and Attorney Fees  5.61
          • (3)  Form: Other Appropriate Relief  5.62
      • 4.  Form: Signature Block  5.63
      • 5.  Verification Required  5.64
        • a.  Public Entities Exempt  5.65
        • b.  Verification Must Be Based on Personal Knowledge  5.66
        • c.  Petitioner Must Verify Petition  5.67
        • d.  Defects in Verification May Be Challenged  5.68
        • e.  Form: Verification  5.69
      • 6.  Exhibits  5.70
      • 7.  Omission or Redaction of Social Security and Financial Account Numbers  5.70A
  • IV.  FILING AND SERVING THE PETITION  5.71
    • A.  Time for Filing
      • 1.  When Special Statutory Deadline  5.72
      • 2.  When No Special Statutory Deadline  5.73
      • 3.  Laches  5.74
    • B.  Venue  5.75
    • C.  When Using Noticed Motion Procedure
      • 1.  Filing and Serving Writ Petition Only at Outset of Proceeding  5.76
        • a.  Filing Procedures
          • (1)  Place of Filing  5.77
          • (2)  Civil Case Cover Sheet  5.78
          • (3)  Filing Fee  5.79
          • (4)  Copies  5.80
        • b.  Serving Procedures
          • (1)  When to Serve  5.81
          • (2)  Whom to Serve  5.82
          • (3)  Manner of Service  5.83
          • (4)  Proof of Service
            • (a)  Time of Filing  5.84
            • (b)  Format  5.85
      • 2.  Bringing Petition on for Hearing
        • a.  Preparing Motion for Issuance of Requested Writ  5.86
        • b.  Format of Motion  5.87
        • c.  Required Papers  5.88
          • (1)  Notice of Motion  5.89
          • (2)  Motion  5.90
          • (3)  Combining Notice of Motion and Motion  5.91
          • (4)  Supporting Memorandum
            • (a)  Purpose of Supporting Memorandum  5.92
            • (b)  Required Contents of Supporting Memorandum  5.93
            • (c)  Format of Supporting Memorandum  5.94
            • (d)  Page Limits  5.95
            • (e)  Style of Supporting Memorandum  5.96
            • (f)  Supporting Memorandum Should Be Persuasive  5.97
              • (i)  Supporting Memorandum Should Clearly State Basis for Issuance of Writ  5.98
              • (ii)  Citations to Evidence  5.99
              • (iii)  Use of Quotations  5.100
        • d.  Additional Papers
          • (1)  Declarations  5.101
          • (2)  Administrative Record  5.102
          • (3)  Proposed Order/Judgment  5.103
        • e.  Service and Filing of Motion and Supporting Documents  5.104
          • (1)  Whom to Serve  5.105
          • (2)  When to Serve  5.106
          • (3)  Where and When to File Papers  5.107
    • D.  When Using Alternative Writ Procedure  5.108
      • 1.  Preparing the Papers
        • a.  Writ Petition  5.109
        • b.  Supporting Memorandum  5.110
        • c.  Exhibits/Declarations  5.111
        • d.  Proposed Alternative Writ  5.112
      • 2.  Filing and Service Procedures
        • a.  Use of Ex Parte Application  5.113
          • (1)  Contents of Ex Parte Application  5.114
          • (2)  Service of Ex Parte Application  5.115
          • (3)  Personal Appearance  5.116
          • (4)  Following Local Procedures  5.117
        • b.  Court Action on Ex Parte Application  5.118
  • V.  COMBINING WRIT PETITION AND COMPLAINT  5.119
  • VI.  CONSIDERING RESTRICTIONS OF TRIAL COURT DELAY REDUCTION ACT  5.120
  • VII.  COSTS AND ATTORNEY FEES
    • A.  Recovery of Costs
      • 1.  By Prevailing Party  5.121
      • 2.  Costs Allowed  5.122
      • 3.  Procedure for Claiming Costs  5.123
    • B.  Award of Attorney Fees
      • 1.  When Fees Are Recoverable  5.124
      • 2.  Procedure for Recovering Attorney Fees
        • a.  When to File  5.125
        • b.  What to File  5.126
    • C.  Interplay Between Motion for Fees and Costs Bill  5.127
  • VIII.  CHECKLIST: PITFALLS TO AVOID  5.128

6

Requesting a Stay in a Superior Court Writ Proceeding

Jeffrey Chine

Jennifer La Fond Chavez

  • I.  SCOPE OF CHAPTER  6.1
  • II.  GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
    • A.  Two Methods for Staying Challenged Action or Decision  6.2
    • B.  Determining When Stay or Injunction Is Necessary or Appropriate  6.3
      • 1.  Type of Writ Relief Sought May Be Determinative of Need for Stay  6.4
      • 2.  Court Makes Preliminary Decision on Merits of Petition  6.5
    • C.  Factors to Consider When Deciding Between Stay or Preliminary Injunction  6.6
  • III.  STAY APPLICATION
    • A.  Applying for Stay
      • 1.  Application Can Be Part of Writ Petition or Separate Document  6.7
      • 2.  Length of Stay  6.8
      • 3.  Preparation of Documents
        • a.  When Stay Application Is Part of Writ Petition  6.9
        • b.  When Stay Application Is Separate Document  6.10
          • (1)  Application  6.11
          • (2)  Supporting Memorandum
            • (a)  Contents  6.12
            • (b)  Standard of Review  6.13
          • (3)  Record  6.14
          • (4)  Supporting Declarations  6.15
          • (5)  Proposed Order  6.16
      • 4.  Filing Documents  6.17
    • B.  Opposing Stay Application
      • 1.  Entering Stipulation if No Opposition  6.18
      • 2.  Filing Written Opposition if Time Permits  6.19
      • 3.  Requesting Undertaking
        • a.  Court Has Discretion to Require Undertaking  6.20
        • b.  Court Has Discretion to Set Amount of Undertaking  6.21
    • C.  Superior Court Action on Stay Application
      • 1.  Stay Hearing
        • a.  Noticed Motion Procedure  6.22
        • b.  Ex Parte Procedure  6.23
      • 2.  Appearance at Hearing  6.23A
      • 3.  Hearing Procedures  6.23B
      • 4.  Grant or Denial of Stay Request
        • a.  Decision Is Within Court’s Discretion  6.24
        • b.  When Stay Application Is Granted  6.25
        • c.  When Stay Application Is Denied  6.26
    • D.  Appellate Relief  6.27
    • E.  Modifying or Dissolving a Stay  6.28
  • IV.  TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
    • A.  Seeking Stay Through Preliminary Injunctive Relief  6.29
    • B.  Required Showing  6.30
    • C.  Temporary Restraining Order
      • 1.  Description and Purpose  6.31
      • 2.  Motion Papers Must Include Copy of Verified Writ Petition  6.32
      • 3.  Court Has Discretion to Require Bond or Undertaking  6.33
      • 4.  If Temporary Restraining Order Application Is Denied  6.34
      • 5.  If Temporary Restraining Order Application Is Granted  6.35
      • 6.  Appellate Relief  6.35A
    • D.  Motion for Preliminary Injunction
      • 1.  Criteria for Issuance  6.36
      • 2.  Undertaking (Bond) Requirement
        • a.  When Required  6.37
        • b.  Amount of Undertaking (Bond)  6.38
        • c.  Appellate Relief  6.38A
  • V.  CHECKLIST: OBTAINING STAY ORDER  6.39

7

The Record in Superior Court Writ Proceedings

David de Jesus

  • I.  SCOPE OF CHAPTER  7.1
  • II.  PURPOSE OF THE RECORD  7.2
    • A.  Necessity of Sufficient Record  7.3
    • B.  Statutory Guidance Limited  7.4
  • III.  PREPARING THE RECORD FOR A SUPERIOR COURT WRIT PROCEEDING
    • A.  Who Prepares the Record  7.5
    • B.  What Record Includes
      • 1.  Record Depends on Type of Petition and Nature of Underlying Proceeding  7.6
      • 2.  Include All Relevant Evidence Presented During the Underlying Proceeding  7.7
      • 3.  Include Opposing Party’s Evidence Presented During Underlying Proceeding  7.8
      • 4.  Evidence Not Presented During Underlying Proceeding (Extra-Record Evidence)  7.9
        • a.  If Challenging Ministerial or Informal Actions  7.10
        • b.  If Challenging Quasi-Legislative Actions  7.11
        • c.  If Challenging Adjudicatory Decisions  7.12
      • 5.  Record in Pre-Merits Hearings  7.13
    • C.  Obtaining Record From Decision-Making Body in Underlying Proceeding  7.14
      • 1.  When to Request Underlying Record  7.15
      • 2.  How to Request Underlying Record  7.16
      • 3.  Paying for Preparation of Underlying Record  7.17
  • IV.  FORMAT OF THE RECORD PRESENTED TO THE SUPERIOR COURT
    • A.  “Administrative Record” Versus Documentation Submitted by Way of Exhibits  7.18
      • 1.  Appending Supporting Documentation to Petition  7.19
      • 2.  Separate Supporting Documentation  7.20
    • B.  Indexing, Pagination, and Order of Supporting Documentation  7.21
    • C.  Visual Quality of Documents  7.22
    • D.  Citation to the Record  7.23
  • V.  SERVING AND LODGING/FILING THE RECORD DOCUMENTATION
    • A.  Serving the Record  7.24
    • B.  Lodging/Filing the Record  7.25
  • VI.  PROTECTING CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION  7.26
    • A.  Criteria for Sealing Documents  7.27
    • B.  Procedure for Sealing Documents  7.28
      • 1.  Moving for Sealing Order  7.29
      • 2.  Lodging Document (Record) With Court  7.30
        • a.  Conditionally Sealing Document (Record)  7.31
        • b.  Court’s Handling of Conditionally Sealed Document (Record)  7.32
    • C.  Inserting Slip Pages for Sealed Documents  7.33
    • D.  Omission or Redaction of Social Security and Financial Account Numbers  7.33A

8

Responsive Pleadings and Petitioner’s Reply in Superior Court Writ Proceedings

Kelly J. Savage

  • I.  INTRODUCTION
    • A.  Scope of Chapter  8.1
    • B.  Terminology  8.2
  • II.  PROCEDURAL ASPECTS OF RESPONDING TO A WRIT PETITION
    • A.  Response Controlled by Manner in Which Petitioner Chooses to Proceed  8.3
    • B.  When Petitioner Seeks Stay of Challenged Action or Decision  8.4
    • C.  Consider Joint Response  8.5
    • D.  When Petitioner Uses Noticed Motion Procedure
      • 1.  File Responsive Pleading or Motion  8.6
        • a.  Time to File  8.7
          • (1)  When Record Has Been Filed or Is Unnecessary  8.8
          • (2)  When Record Has Been Requested But Not Filed  8.9
          • (3)  Time May Be Extended by Stipulation or Application  8.10
        • b.  Filing, Fee, and Service
          • (1)  File in Same Court as Petition  8.11
          • (2)  Filing Fee  8.12
          • (3)  Serve All Parties  8.13
          • (4)  How to Serve  8.14
        • c.  Consequences of Not Filing Responsive Pleading  8.15
      • 2.  File Opposition to Motion for Issuance of Writ  8.16
        • a.  Time to File  8.17
        • b.  Contents of Opposition Memorandum  8.18
        • c.  Format of Opposition  8.19
        • d.  Evidence in Opposition  8.20
    • E.  Alternative Writ Procedure
      • 1.  Opposition to Application for Issuance of Alternative Writ
        • a.  Optional if Petitioner Seeks Ex Parte Issuance of Alternative Writ  8.21
        • b.  Strongly Recommended if Petitioner Gives 10 Days’ Notice of Application for “a” Writ or for “Peremptory” Writ  8.22
        • c.  Time to File  8.23
          • (1)  When Alternative Writ Is Sought Ex Parte  8.24
          • (2)  When Petitioner Has Given 10 Days’ Notice of Application for “a” Writ or for “Peremptory” Writ  8.25
        • d.  Content of Opposition
          • (1)  When Alternative Writ Is Sought Ex Parte  8.26
          • (2)  When Petitioner Has Given 10 Days’ Notice of Application for “a” Writ or for “Peremptory” Writ  8.27
        • e.  Filing, Fee, and Service
          • (1)  Opposition Filed in Same Court as Petition  8.28
          • (2)  Filing Fee  8.29
          • (3)  Serve All Parties  8.30
          • (4)  How to Serve  8.31
      • 2.  If Superior Court Issues Alternative Writ
        • a.  Effect of Alternative Writ  8.32
          • (1)  If Respondent Chooses to Comply  8.33
          • (2)  If Respondent Chooses Not to Comply  8.34
        • b.  Return After Issuance of Alternative Writ
          • (1)  File Responsive Pleading or Motion  8.35
          • (2)  Time to File  8.36
          • (3)  Consequences of Filing Defective Return or No Return  8.37
          • (4)  Memorandum Addressing Merits of Writ Petition  8.38
      • 3.  “Palma” Notices Not Used in Superior Court Writ Proceedings  8.39
  • III.  TYPES OF RESPONSIVE PLEADINGS AND MOTIONS
    • A.  Demurrer
      • 1.  Tests Sufficiency of Petition  8.40
      • 2.  Basis for Demurrer  8.41
      • 3.  General Guidelines for Demurrers
        • a.  If Demurrer Sustained  8.42
        • b.  If Demurrer Overruled  8.43
      • 4.  Answer in Conjunction With Demurrer  8.44
    • B.  Answer
      • 1.  Function of Answer  8.45
      • 2.  Content of Answer  8.46
        • a.  Allegations Deemed Admitted if Not Denied  8.47
        • b.  Affirmative Defenses Must Be Raised in Answer  8.48
      • 3.  Verification Required  8.49
    • C.  Responsive Motions  8.50
      • 1.  Motion to Dismiss or for Judgment on Writ  8.51
      • 2.  Motion to Quash  8.52
      • 3.  Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings  8.53
      • 4.  Motion for Summary Judgment  8.54
      • 5.  Other Miscellaneous Motions  8.55
      • 6.  File Answer in Conjunction With Motion  8.56
  • IV.  PETITIONER’S REPLY
    • A.  Replication (Reply)  8.57
      • 1.  Deadline for Filing Replication (Reply)  8.58
      • 2.  Contents of Replication (Reply)  8.59
      • 3.  Advance Notice Required if Replication (Reply) Made by Evidence Presented at Hearing  8.60
      • 4.  Filing and Service  8.61
    • B.  Petitioner’s Reply Memorandum
      • 1.  When Noticed Motion Procedure Is Used  8.62
      • 2.  When Alternative Writ Procedure Is Used  8.63

9

Action by Superior Court

The Hon. Kathleen M. Banke

Maureen M. Home

  • I.  SCOPE OF CHAPTER  9.1
  • II.  ACTION ON APPLICATION FOR ALTERNATIVE WRIT OF MANDATE OR PROHIBITION  9.2
    • A.  Court Usually Hears Application Ex Parte  9.3
    • B.  Hearing on Application  9.4
    • C.  Alternative Writ Usually Issues  9.5
    • D.  Effect of Issuance of Alternative Writ  9.6
    • E.  Content of Alternative Writ
      • 1.  Writ of Mandate  9.7
      • 2.  Writ of Prohibition  9.8
      • 3.  Dates for Return and Hearings
        • a.  Date for Return to Writ Petition  9.9
        • b.  Date for Hearing Merits of Return and Petition  9.10
    • F.  Service of Alternative Writ
      • 1.  By Petitioner  9.11
      • 2.  What to Serve
        • a.  Petition and Alternative Writ  9.12
        • b.  Order Directing Issuance of Alternative Writ  9.13
        • c.  Stay Order  9.14
      • 3.  Whom to Serve  9.15
      • 4.  When to Serve  9.16
    • G.  Denial of Alternative Writ and Petition if Facially Defective or Patently Meritless  9.17
      • 1.  Leave to Amend  9.18
      • 2.  Proceed by Way of Noticed Motion  9.19
    • H.  Peremptory Writ of Mandate or Prohibition May Issue in Limited Circumstances  9.20
  • III.  ACTION ON MERITS OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE OR PROHIBITION
    • A.  Hearing Date
      • 1.  When Noticed Motion Procedure Is Used  9.21
        • a.  Standard Law and Motion Rules Apply  9.22
        • b.  If Petitioner Gives 10 Days’ Notice  9.23
      • 2.  When Alternative Writ Procedure Is Used  9.24
    • B.  Nature of Hearing
      • 1.  If No Return Filed  9.25
      • 2.  If Return Raises Only Questions of Law  9.26
      • 3.  If Return Raises Factual Dispute
        • a.  Petitioner Has Burden to Establish Disputed Facts  9.27
        • b.  Parties Entitled to Present Evidence  9.28
          • (1)  Evidence Presented by Declaration or Judicial Notice  9.29
          • (2)  Oral Testimony  9.30
          • (3)  Jury Trial Discretionary  9.31
    • C.  Rulings and Judgments
      • 1.  Tentative Ruling Before Hearing  9.32
      • 2.  Ruling at Conclusion of Hearing or After Submission  9.33
      • 3.  Statement of Decision
        • a.  Considerations in Requesting Statement of Decision  9.34
        • b.  When to Request Statement of Decision  9.35
        • c.  Content of Statement of Decision  9.36
      • 4.  When Petitioner Prevails
        • a.  Petitioner Prepares Judgment  9.37
          • (1)  Purpose of Judgment  9.38
          • (2)  Content of Judgment  9.39
          • (3)  Conformed Copies for Parties  9.40
        • b.  Petitioner Prepares Peremptory Writ
          • (1)  Proposed Peremptory Writ  9.41
          • (2)  Respondent’s Return Date  9.42
          • (3)  When to Prepare Writ  9.43
          • (4)  Content of Writ  9.44
          • (5)  Service of Writ  9.45
          • (6)  Laying Foundation for Future Sanctions  9.46
      • 5.  When Respondent Prevails
        • a.  Respondent Prepares Judgment Denying Issuance of Writ  9.47
        • b.  Content of Judgment  9.48
  • IV.  ACTION ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF REVIEW (CERTIORARI)
    • A.  Issuance of Order to Show Cause  9.49
    • B.  Issuance of Writ of Review (Certiorari)  9.50
    • C.  Hearing and Decision on Merits  9.51
    • D.  Ruling and Judgment  9.52
  • V.  RULING ON MISCELLANEOUS MOTIONS  9.53
  • VI.  RES JUDICATA EFFECT OF SUPERIOR COURT JUDGMENT
    • A.  Final Judgment in Writ Proceeding Has Preclusive Effect  9.54
    • B.  Denial of Alternative Writ Has No Preclusive Effect  9.55

10

Enforcing Writs Issued by Superior Court

Judy L. McKelvey

  • I.  SCOPE OF CHAPTER  10.1
  • II.  OBLIGATION TO COMPLY WITH PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE OR PROHIBITION  10.2
  • III.  PEREMPTORY WRIT COMPLIANCE
    • A.  Respondent or Real Party in Interest May File Return Regarding Compliance  10.3
      • 1.  Contents of Return  10.4
        • a.  Writ Satisfied in Full  10.5
        • b.  Writ Satisfied in Part  10.6
        • c.  Writ Not Satisfied  10.7
      • 2.  Acceptable Reasons for Noncompliance With Writ  10.8
      • 3.  Financial Burden Not Acceptable Reason for Noncompliance With Writ  10.9
    • B.  Challenging Return  10.10
  • IV.  PEREMPTORY WRIT ENFORCEMENT
    • A.  Court Retains Jurisdiction to Enforce Writ  10.11
    • B.  Writ Must Be Personally Served  10.12
    • C.  Enforcement Methods
      • 1.  Motion to Enforce Compliance  10.13
      • 2.  Order to Show Cause re Contempt  10.14
      • 3.  New or Supplemental Writ Petition  10.15
    • D.  Penalties for Noncompliance  10.16
      • 1.  Enforcement Order  10.17
      • 2.  Fine  10.18
      • 3.  Imprisonment  10.19
  • V.  ENFORCING WRITS OF REVIEW (CERTIORARI)
    • A.  Remedies for Failure to Comply With Writ of Review (Certiorari)  10.20
    • B.  New Writ Petition Necessary to Enforce Judgment in Writ of Review (Certiorari) Proceeding  10.21

11

Challenging the Superior Court’s Decision

The Hon. Margaret M. Grignon (Ret.)

Judith E. Posner

  • I.  SCOPE OF CHAPTER  11.1
  • II.  SEEKING RELIEF IN SUPERIOR COURT  11.2
    • A.  Motion for New Trial  11.3
    • B.  Motion to Vacate  11.4
    • C.  Motion for Reconsideration
      • 1.  Probably Not Permissible if Ruling on Petition Disposes of All Issues  11.5
      • 2.  When Order Does Not Finally Determine All Issues  11.6
  • III.  SEEKING RELIEF IN COURT OF APPEAL
    • A.  Filing Appeal Is Usual Remedy  11.7
      • 1.  No Formal Judgment Necessary  11.8
      • 2.  Decision Must Finally Determine Parties’ Rights  11.9
        • a.  Denial Without Prejudice  11.10
        • b.  Multi-Party Cases  11.11
      • 3.  Decision Final Despite Noncompliance With Writ  11.12
      • 4.  Postjudgment Orders Appealable  11.13
      • 5.  Interlocutory Rulings Not Appealable  11.14
    • B.  Deciding Whether to Appeal
      • 1.  Factors to Consider  11.15
        • a.  Standard of Review on Appeal  11.16
        • b.  Time and Financial Costs  11.17
        • c.  Gravity of Adverse Consequences of Judgment  11.18
      • 2.  Prospect of Settlement on Appeal  11.19
    • C.  Summary Overview of Appellate Process
      • 1.  Rules Applicable in Writ Proceedings  11.20
      • 2.  Notice of Appeal  11.21
        • a.  Time to File  11.22
        • b.  Timely Filing Is Jurisdictional  11.23
      • 3.  Stay on Appeal
        • a.  Appeal Automatically Stays Execution of Writ of Mandate, But Not of Writ of Prohibition  11.24
        • b.  Exceptions to Automatic-Stay Rule  11.25
      • 4.  Record on Appeal  11.26
      • 5.  Dismissal of Moot Appeal  11.26A
      • 6.  Briefing on Appeal  11.27
        • a.  Appellant’s Opening Brief  11.28
        • b.  Respondent’s Brief  11.29
        • c.  Appellant’s Reply Brief  11.30
      • 7.  Oral Argument  11.31
      • 8.  Opinion of Court of Appeal  11.32
      • 9.  Costs on Appeal  11.33
    • D.  Challenging Court of Appeal’s Decision
      • 1.  Rehearing in Court of Appeal  11.34
      • 2.  Review by Supreme Court  11.35
    • E.  Requesting Depublication of Published Court of Appeal Opinion  11.36
  • IV.  SEEKING WRIT RELIEF IN APPELLATE COURTS
    • A.  Petition Filed in Court of Appeal  11.37
    • B.  Petition Filed in Supreme Court  11.38

12

Writ Petitions in Limited Civil and Small Claims Cases

Efrat M. Cogan

  • I.  SCOPE OF CHAPTER  12.1
  • II.  LIMITED JURISDICTION CIVIL CASES
    • A.  Definition of Limited Jurisdiction Civil Case  12.2
    • B.  Writ Review of Superior Court’s Interlocutory Action in Limited Jurisdiction Civil Case  12.3
    • C.  Initiating Writ Proceeding in Appellate Division
      • 1.  Format and Contents of Petition  12.4
      • 2.  Supporting Memorandum  12.5
      • 3.  Supporting Record
        • a.  Contents of Record  12.6
        • b.  Format of Record  12.7
        • c.  Inadequate or Nonconforming Record  12.8
      • 4.  Requesting a Stay  12.9
      • 5.  Filing and Service  12.10
    • D.  Initial Action by Appellate Division  12.11
    • E.  Opposition to Writ Petition
      • 1.  Preliminary Opposition
        • a.  Format and Contents of Preliminary Opposition  12.12
        • b.  Time for Filing Preliminary Opposition  12.13
      • 2.  Opposition When Appellate Division Considers Issuing Peremptory Writ in First Instance  12.14
      • 3.  Opposition and Return When Appellate Division Issues Alternative Writ  12.15
    • F.  Petitioner’s Reply
      • 1.  Reply to Preliminary Opposition  12.16
      • 2.  Reply to Opposition and Return  12.17
    • G.  Review of Appellate Division’s Decision on Writ Petition
      • 1.  Mandate and Prohibition
        • a.  Filing New Petition in Court of Appeal  12.18
        • b.  Court of Appeal May Treat Erroneous Appeal as Writ Petition  12.19
      • 2.  Filing Appeal in Writ of Review (Certiorari) Cases  12.20
      • 3.  Writ Petition to California Supreme Court May Be Appropriate in Rare Cases  12.21
    • H.  Review of Appellate Division’s Judgment on Appeal
      • 1.  By Writ Petition to Court of Appeal  12.22
      • 2.  By Transfer to Court of Appeal
        • a.  Certification for Transfer to Court of Appeal  12.23
        • b.  Petition for Transfer to Court of Appeal  12.24
        • c.  Order for Transfer  12.24A
    • I.  Costs  12.25
  • III.  SMALL CLAIMS COURT CASES
    • A.  Writ Challenging Act of Small Claims Court  12.26
      • 1.  Form, Contents, Filing, and Service of Petition
        • a.  Unrepresented Party  12.26A
        • b.  Represented Party  12.26B
      • 2.  Preliminary Opposition  12.26C
      • 3.  Return/Opposition and Reply  12.26D
      • 4.  When Decision Becomes Final  12.26E
      • 5.  Costs  12.26F
      • 6.  No Appeal of Decision; Review by Extraordinary Writ Possible  12.26G
    • B.  Writ Review May Be Available to Challenge Superior Court Judgment After Appeal  12.27
  • IV.  WRITS OF SUPERSEDEAS  12.28

13

Superior Court Forms

  • I.  FORM: VERIFIED PETITION FOR ALTERNATIVE WRIT OF MANDATE AND VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF  13.1
  • II.  EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ALTERNATIVE WRIT OF MANDATE AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
    • A.  Form: Ex Parte Application for Alternative Writ of Mandate and Order to Show Cause  13.2
    • B.  Form: Memorandum in Support of Ex Parte Application for Alternative Writ of Mandate and Order to Show Cause  13.3
    • C.  Form: Declaration of Notice in Support of Ex Parte Application for Alternative Writ of Mandate and Order to Show Cause  13.4
    • D.  Form: Proposed Order Directing Issuance of Alternative Writ of Mandate  13.5
    • E.  Form: Alternative Writ of Mandate  13.6
    • F.  Form: Notice of Hearing on Petition for Writ of Mandate  13.7
  • III.  APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
    • A.  Form: Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause  13.8
    • B.  Form: Proposed Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause  13.9
  • IV.  DEMURRER TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
    • A.  Form: Demurrer to Petition for Writ of Mandate  13.10
    • B.  Form: Memorandum in Support of Demurrer to Petition for Writ of Mandate  13.11
  • V.  OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
    • A.  Form: Opposition to Petition for Writ of Mandate  13.12
    • B.  Form: Request for Judicial Notice in Opposition to Petition for Writ of Mandate  13.13
    • C.  Form: Declaration in Opposition to Petition for Writ of Mandate  13.14
    • D.  Form: Proposed Order Denying Petition for Writ of Mandate  13.15
  • VI.  LIMITED CIVIL CASES
    • A.  Form: Information on Writ Proceedings in Misdemeanor, Infraction, and Limited Civil Cases (Judicial Council Form APP-150-INFO)  13.16
    • B.  Form: Petition for Writ (Misdemeanor, Infraction, or Limited Civil Case) (Judicial Council Form APP-151)  13.17

14

Overview of Appellate Court Writ Practice

The Hon. Kathleen M. Banke

  • I.  INTRODUCTION  14.1
  • II.  PROCEDURES FOR PROSECUTING APPELLATE COURT WRITS  14.2
  • III.  COVERAGE OF APPELLATE COURT WRIT PRACTICE  14.3

15

Common Appellate Writs and Basic Requirements

Grace K. Won

David K. Ismay

  • I.  SCOPE OF CHAPTER  15.1
  • II.  WRIT OF MANDATE  15.2
    • A.  Description and Purpose  15.3
    • B.  Issuance Within Appellate Court’s Discretion  15.4
    • C.  Substantive Requirements  15.5
    • D.  Function of Mandate
      • 1.  To Compel Performance of Ministerial Duty  15.6
        • a.  “Ministerial Duty” Defined  15.7
        • b.  Examples of Ministerial Trial Court Actions  15.8
        • c.  Examples of Nonjudicial Court Officer’s Ministerial Duties  15.9
      • 2.  To Compel Exercise of Discretion  15.10
      • 3.  To Correct Abuse of Discretion  15.11
        • a.  When Facts Dictate Particular Result  15.12
        • b.  When Trial Court Has Made Error of Law  15.13
  • III.  WRIT OF PROHIBITION
    • A.  Description and Purpose  15.14
    • B.  Substantive Requirements
      • 1.  Challenged Action Must Be Judicial  15.15
        • a.  Most Court Action Is Judicial  15.16
        • b.  Ministerial Court Actions Do Not Qualify  15.17
      • 2.  Challenged Action Must Be Threatened But Not Completed  15.18
        • a.  Prohibition Does Not Restrain Merely Possible Action  15.19
        • b.  Prohibition Can Restrain Continuing or Incomplete Judicial Action  15.20
        • c.  When Trial Court Completes Act Before Appellate Court Rules on Petition  15.21
      • 3.  Jurisdictional Defect Must Exist  15.22
        • a.  Test for Determining Existence of Jurisdictional Defect  15.23
        • b.  When Only Portion of Threatened Judicial Action Exceeds Court’s Jurisdiction  15.24
    • C.  Seek Relief in Trial Court First  15.25
    • D.  Examples of Threatened Judicial Acts in Excess of Jurisdiction  15.26
  • IV.  WRIT OF REVIEW (CERTIORARI)
    • A.  Description and Purpose  15.27
    • B.  Writ Brings Up Record From Lower Court  15.28
    • C.  Substantive Requirements for Writ of Review (Certiorari)
      • 1.  Act to Be Reviewed Must Be Judicial  15.29
      • 2.  Judicial Act Must Be Completed  15.30
      • 3.  Act Must Be in Excess of Court’s Jurisdiction  15.31
      • 4.  No Right of Appeal  15.32
        • a.  Requirement Strictly Applied  15.33
        • b.  Requirement Applies Even if Appeal Is Not Speedy or Adequate Remedy  15.34
        • c.  Remote Appeal May Justify Writ  15.35
        • d.  Exception When Right to Appeal Lost Through No Fault of Petitioner  15.36
    • D.  Examples of Completed Judicial Action Subject to Writ of Review (Certiorari)
      • 1.  Rulings in Contempt Proceedings  15.37
      • 2.  Other Judicial Actions  15.38
  • V.  OTHER WRITS
    • A.  Habeas Corpus
      • 1.  Description and Purpose
        • a.  Inquires Into Cause of Imprisonment or Restraint  15.39
        • b.  Used Mostly in Criminal Context  15.40
      • 2.  Uses in Civil Proceedings
        • a.  Civil Contempt  15.41
        • b.  Child Custody  15.42
        • c.  Civil Commitment  15.43
    • B.  Coram Nobis and Coram Vobis
      • 1.  Description and Purpose
        • a.  Correct Errors of Fact  15.44
        • b.  Case Law Governs  15.45
        • c.  Used Mostly in Criminal Cases  15.46
      • 2.  Requirements for Issuance  15.47
      • 3.  Availability in Civil Cases  15.48
    • C.  Writ of Supersedeas  15.49
    • D.  Quo Warranto  15.50
  • VI.  BASIC REQUIREMENTS FOR WRIT RELIEF
    • A.  Petitioner Must Have Beneficial Interest
      • 1.  “Beneficial Interest” Defined  15.51
      • 2.  Party Aggrieved by Trial Court Ruling Has Beneficial Interest  15.52
      • 3.  Petitioner Need Not Be Party to Underlying Action  15.53
      • 4.  When Petitioner Challenges Nonjudicial Action in Court of Appeal  15.54
      • 5.  Trial Court Usually Not Beneficially Interested  15.55
    • B.  Petitioner Must Have No Other Adequate Remedy
      • 1.  Appeal Is Usually Adequate Remedy  15.56
        • a.  Appealable Interlocutory Orders and Judgments  15.57
        • b.  Appeal From Final Judgment  15.58
        • c.  If Writ Proceeding Is Exclusive Means of Appellate Review  15.59
      • 2.  Petitioner’s Burden to Show Inadequacy of Other Remedies  15.60
    • C.  Petitioner Must Face Irreparable Injury  15.61
      • 1.  Specific and Immediate Harm  15.62
        • a.  When Ruling Deprives Petitioner of Opportunity to Present Case  15.63
        • b.  When Ruling Is Clearly Erroneous and Substantially Prejudicial  15.64
      • 2.  Petitioner’s Burden to Show Irreparable Injury  15.65
    • D.  Issue Must Not Be Moot
      • 1.  Writ Generally Will Not Issue When Case Is Moot  15.66
      • 2.  Public Interest May Override Mootness  15.67
    • E.  Issue Usually Must Have Been Raised in Trial Court  15.68
    • F.  Other Factors  15.69
      • 1.  Issue of Widespread Public Importance or First Impression  15.70
      • 2.  Code of Civil Procedure §166.1 Certification by Trial Court  15.70A
      • 3.  Trial Courts in Conflict  15.71
      • 4.  Improper Appeal Deemed Writ Petition  15.72

16

Availability of Appellate Writ Relief

Paul D. Fogel

  • I.  SCOPE OF CHAPTER  16.1
  • II.  STATUTES SPECIFYING USE OF WRIT PETITION TO OBTAIN APPELLATE REVIEW
    • A.  Writ Petition as Exclusive Means of Obtaining Appellate Review  16.2
      • 1.  CCP §170.3: Grant or Denial of Judicial Disqualification or Challenge
        • a.  Writ Proceeding Exclusive Means of Obtaining Appellate Review  16.3
          • (1)  Only Parties May File Writ Petition  16.4
          • (2)  Request Mandate  16.5
        • b.  Deadline to File Writ Petition Under CCP §170.3(d)  16.6
        • c.  Standard of Review if Writ Petition Accepted  16.7
      • 2.  CCP §404.6: Order Concerning Coordination of Actions
        • a.  Writ Proceeding Exclusive Means of Obtaining Appellate Review  16.8
        • b.  Deadline to File Writ Petition  16.9
        • c.  Standard of Review if Writ Petition Accepted  16.10
      • 3.  CCP §405.39: Grant or Denial of Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens
        • a.  Writ Proceeding Exclusive Means of Obtaining Appellate Review  16.11
        • b.  Deadline to File Writ Petition  16.12
        • c.  Standard of Review if Writ Petition Accepted  16.13
      • 4.  Govt C §6259(c): Public Records Act
        • a.  Writ Proceeding Exclusive Means of Obtaining Appellate Review  16.14
        • b.  Court Has Limited Discretion to Deny Writ Petition  16.15
        • c.  Deadline to File Writ Petition and Trial Court Stay  16.16
        • d.  Standard of Review if Writ Petition Accepted  16.17
      • 5.  Bus & P C §2337: Disciplinary Decisions of California Medical Board
        • a.  Writ Petition Exclusive Means of Obtaining Appellate Review  16.17A
        • b.  Deadline to File Writ Petition  16.17B
        • c.  Standard of Review if Writ Petition Accepted  16.17C
      • 6.  Special Provisions for Writ Review of Certain Administrative Proceedings
        • a.  Petition for Review of Final Order of Agricultural Labor Relations Board
          • (1)  Writ Proceeding Exclusive Means of Obtaining Appellate Review  16.18
          • (2)  Deadline to File Writ Petition  16.19
          • (3)  Discretion to Deny Petition  16.20
          • (4)  Standard of Review if Writ Petition Accepted  16.21
        • b.  Decisions of Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board
          • (1)  Petition for Writ of Review of Adjudicatory Order of Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board  16.22
          • (2)  Deadline to File Writ Petition  16.23
          • (3)  Standard of Review if Writ Petition Accepted  16.24
          • (4)  Petition for Writ of Mandate Challenging Nonadjudicatory Action  16.25
        • c.  Petition for Writ of Review of Decisions of Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission  16.26
          • (1)  Deadline to File Writ Petition  16.27
          • (2)  Standard on Review if Writ Petition Accepted  16.28
        • d.  Petition for Writ of Review of Decisions of Public Employment Relations Board  16.29
          • (1)  Deadline to File Writ Petition  16.30
          • (2)  Standard of Review if Writ Petition Accepted  16.31
          • (3)  Compare Board Petition to Enforce Decision  16.32
        • e.  Petition for Writ of Review of Decisions of Public Utilities Commission
          • (1)  Petition for Writ of Review  16.33
            • (a)  Application for Rehearing Prerequisite to Judicial Review  16.34
            • (b)  No Petition for Rehearing Required After Decision on Rehearing  16.35
            • (c)  Application for Rehearing Deemed Denied  16.36
          • (2)  Deadline to File Petition for Writ of Review  16.37
          • (3)  Parties and Venue  16.38
          • (4)  Standard of Review if Writ Petition Accepted  16.39
            • (a)  In Complaint, Enforcement, Ratemaking, or Licensing Proceedings Under Pub Util C §1757  16.40
            • (b)  In Cases in Which Pub Util C §1757 Does Not Apply  16.41
            • (c)  In Cases Pertaining to Water Corporations  16.42
            • (d)  No New Evidence in Writ Proceeding  16.43
            • (e)  In Cases Involving Constitutional Questions  16.43A
          • (5)  Summary Denial of Writ Is on Merits  16.44
          • (6)  PUC’s Exercise of Legislative Power Not Res Judicata  16.45
        • f.  Decisions of Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board
          • (1)  Writ of Review Exclusive Means of Obtaining Appellate Review  16.46
          • (2)  Deadline to File Petition for Writ of Review  16.47
          • (3)  Standard of Review if Writ Petition Accepted  16.48
    • B.  Writ Petition as Prerequisite to Appeal
      • 1.  CCP §877.6(e): Grant or Denial of Motion for “Good Faith Settlement” Determination
        • a.  Writ Proceeding May Be Prerequisite to Obtaining Appellate Review  16.49
        • b.  Deadline to File Writ Petition  16.50
        • c.  Standard of Review if Writ Petition Accepted  16.51
      • 2.  Challenge to Setting Termination Hearing Under Welf & I C §366.26(l) or Post-Termination Placement Order Under Welf & I C §366.28(b)  16.52
  • III.  OTHER STATUTES AUTHORIZING WRIT REVIEW
    • A.  Overview  16.53
    • B.  CCP §418.10(c): Denial of Motion to Quash Service; to Stay or Dismiss for Inconvenient Forum; to Dismiss for Delay in Prosecution
      • 1.  Overview  16.54
      • 2.  Deadline to File Writ Petition Under CCP §418.10(c)  16.55
      • 3.  Standard of Review if Writ Petition Accepted  16.56
      • 4.  Filing Writ Petition Extends Time to File Responsive Pleading in Superior Court  16.57
    • C.  CCP §403.080: Grant or Denial of Superior Court Motion to Reclassify Action or Proceeding
      • 1.  Overview  16.58
      • 2.  Deadline to File Writ Petition Under CCP §403.080  16.59
      • 3.  Filing Requirements and Possible Stay  16.60
      • 4.  Standard of Review if Writ Petition Accepted  16.61
    • D.  CCP §400: Grant or Denial of Superior Court Motion to Change Venue
      • 1.  Overview  16.62
      • 2.  Exception: Venue Order in Limited Civil Cases Directly Appealable  16.63
      • 3.  Deadline to File Writ Petition Under CCP §400  16.64
      • 4.  Standard of Review if Writ Petition Accepted  16.65
    • E.  CCP §425.18: Partial Grant or Denial of Special Motion to Strike “SLAPPback” Cause of Action
      • 1.  Overview  16.65A
      • 2.  Deadline to File Writ Petition Under CCP §425.18(g)  16.65B
      • 3.  Unclear Whether Writ Petition Is Exclusive Means of Seeking Appellate Review  16.65C
    • F.  CCP §437c: Denial of Motion for Summary Judgment; Violation of Summary Judgment Motion Procedures; Grant or Denial of Motion for Summary Adjudication
      • 1.  Overview  16.66
      • 2.  Denial of Motion for Summary Judgment  16.67
      • 3.  Grant or Denial of Summary Adjudication  16.68
      • 4.  Basis for Writ Petition
        • a.  Court Erred in Denying Motion  16.69
        • b.  Court Failed to Specify Issues and Evidence Relied on  16.70
        • c.  Court Erred in Taking Motion Off Calendar  16.71
        • d.  Court Erred by Shortening Notice Period  16.72
        • e.  Court Erred by Depriving Party of Right to File Motion  16.73
        • f.  Court Erred by Denying Oral Argument  16.74
        • g.  Court Erred by Refusing to Consider Summary Adjudication in Alternative  16.75
      • 5.  Deadline to File Writ Petition  16.76
      • 6.  Standard of Review if Writ Petition Accepted  16.77
    • G.  CCP §1176: Denial of Stay in Unlawful Detainer Action
      • 1.  Overview  16.78
      • 2.  Deadline to File Writ Petition  16.79
      • 3.  Standard of Review if Writ Petition Accepted  16.80
    • H.  CCP §904.1(a)(11)–(12): Monetary Sanction Judgment or Order of $5000 or Less
      • 1.  Overview  16.81
      • 2.  Request Writ of Mandate or Prohibition in Alternative  16.82
      • 3.  No Statutory Deadline for Petition  16.83
      • 4.  Standard of Review if Writ Petition Accepted  16.84
      • 5.  Discovery Sanctions  16.85
  • IV.  OTHER CONTEXTS IN WHICH WRIT RELIEF HAS BEEN GRANTED
    • A.  Overview  16.86
    • B.  Time to File Nonstatutory Writ Petition  16.87
    • C.  To Challenge Jurisdiction of Superior Court on Basis of Invalidity of Statute or Ordinance
      • 1.  Overview  16.88
      • 2.  Use of Prohibition to Test Validity of Law  16.89
      • 3.  Use of Mandate to Test Validity of Law  16.90
      • 4.  Standard of Review if Writ Petition Accepted  16.91
    • D.  In Cases of Exclusive, Conflicting, or Concurrent Jurisdiction
      • 1.  Exclusive Jurisdiction  16.92
      • 2.  Conflicting or Concurrent Jurisdiction
        • a.  Trial Courts With Conflicting or Concurrent Jurisdiction  16.93
        • b.  Determining Which Trial Court Has Jurisdiction  16.94
        • c.  Determining Choice of Law  16.95
        • d.  Other Tribunals With Conflicting or Concurrent Jurisdiction  16.96
      • 3.  Objecting Before Seeking Writ  16.97
      • 4.  Standard of Review if Writ Petition Accepted  16.98
    • E.  To Review Arbitration Issues
      • 1.  Questions of First Impression  16.99
      • 2.  Orders Compelling Arbitration  16.100
      • 3.  Standard of Review if Writ Petition Accepted  16.101
    • F.  To Remedy Orders Concerning Counsel
      • 1.  Disqualification Motions  16.102
      • 2.  Other Issues Involving Counsel  16.103
      • 3.  Standard of Review if Writ Petition Accepted  16.104
    • G.  To Review Orders on Pleadings
      • 1.  When Issue Is Substantial or Resolution Would Result in Final Disposition of Case as to Party  16.105
      • 2.  When Ruling on Pleading Would Dramatically Affect Scope or Nature of Action  16.106
      • 3.  Standard of Review if Writ Petition Accepted  16.107
    • H.  To Review Rulings on Demurrer
      • 1.  When Demurrer Is Overruled in Its Entirety  16.108
      • 2.  When Demurrer Is Partially Sustained  16.109
      • 3.  When Court Sustains Demurrer  16.110
      • 4.  Standard of Review if Writ Petition Accepted  16.111
    • I.  When Court Denies Motion to Dismiss
      • 1.  Overview  16.112
      • 2.  Writ of Prohibition to Prevent Trial  16.113
      • 3.  Standard of Review if Writ Petition Accepted  16.114
    • J.  To Correct Discovery Order
      • 1.  Overview  16.115
      • 2.  Significant Issues of First Impression Arising During Discovery  16.116
      • 3.  Constitutional Issues Arising During Discovery
        • a.  Overview  16.117
        • b.  Right to Privacy  16.118
      • 4.  Recurring Procedural Issues  16.119
      • 5.  Issues of Privilege
        • a.  Overview  16.120
        • b.  Examples of Writ Review of Privilege Issues  16.121
        • c.  Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product Doctrine  16.122
      • 6.  Issues Involving Denial of Discovery  16.123
      • 7.  Issues Involving Grant of Discovery  16.124
      • 8.  Issues Involving Orders Imposing Discovery Sanctions  16.125
        • a.  Review of Discovery Sanctions of $5000 or Less  16.126
        • b.  Review of Discovery Sanctions of More Than $5000  16.127
      • 9.  Time to File Writ Petition  16.128
      • 10.  Standard of Review if Writ Petition Accepted  16.129
    • K.  To Review Class Certification Orders  16.129A
      • 1.  Class Notification Issues  16.129B
      • 2.  Time to File Writ Petition  16.129C
      • 3.  Standard of Review if Writ Petition Accepted  16.129D
    • L.  To Review Judgments and Orders in Contempt Cases  16.130
      • 1.  Review of Order Before Contempt Adjudication
        • a.  Writ of Prohibition Before Contempt Adjudication  16.131
        • b.  State Newspersons’ Shield Law Does Not Provide Relief Before Contempt Adjudication  16.132
      • 2.  Writ Review of Contempt Judgment or Order
        • a.  Overview  16.133
        • b.  Scope of Review  16.134
        • c.  Review by Writ of Review (Certiorari)  16.135
        • d.  Review by Writ of Habeas Corpus  16.136
        • e.  Review by Writ of Prohibition
          • (1)  Writ of Prohibition Not Available After Fine Has Been Paid or Jail Sentence Has Been Served  16.137
          • (2)  Writ of Prohibition Restrains Court That Failed to Comply With Prescribed Contempt Procedures  16.138
          • (3)  Using Writ of Prohibition to Challenge Defective Affidavits  16.139
        • f.  Review by Writ of Mandate  16.140
      • 3.  Time to File Writ Petition  16.141
      • 4.  Standard of Review if Writ Petition Accepted  16.142
    • M.  To Review Probate Proceedings  16.143
    • N.  To Review Family Law and Dependency Matters  16.143A
    • O.  To Review Guardianship and Conservatorship Proceedings  16.144
    • P.  To Review Orders on Motions in Limine and Rulings in Bifurcated Proceedings  16.145
      • 1.  Time to File Writ Petition  16.146
      • 2.  Standard of Review if Writ Petition Accepted  16.147
    • Q.  To Review Orders on Jury Trial
      • 1.  Overview  16.148
      • 2.  Standard of Review if Writ Petition Accepted  16.149
    • R.  To Review Injunctions
      • 1.  Overview  16.150
      • 2.  Standard of Review if Writ Petition Accepted  16.151
    • S.  When Appeal Is Defective  16.151A
    • T.  To Review Parole Orders  16.151B
  • V.  EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES THAT REQUIRE FILING BOTH WRIT AND APPEAL  16.152

17

Determining Whether to File an Appellate Court Writ Petition

Robert H. Wright

  • I.  SCOPE OF CHAPTER  17.1
  • II.  EXPLORING ALTERNATIVES TO SEEKING WRIT RELIEF  17.2
  • III.  HANDLING APPELLATE COURT WRIT PROCEEDING  17.3
    • A.  Ethical Considerations for Trial Counsel  17.4
    • B.  Ethical Considerations for Appellate Specialist
      • 1.  Duty to Practice Competently  17.5
      • 2.  Duty to Ensure That Client Is Aware of Appellate Counsel’s Involvement in the Case  17.6
    • C.  Allocation of Responsibility Between Counsel  17.7
  • IV.  CHECKING FOR CONFLICTS OF INTEREST  17.8
    • A.  Checking for Conflicts Before Discussing Case  17.9
    • B.  Potential Conflicts
      • 1.  Conflict With the Interests of Another Current Client  17.10
      • 2.  Conflict Arising From Receipt of Confidential Information From a Client or Former Client  17.11
      • 3.  Conflict Arising From Attorney’s Interests and Relationships  17.12
      • 4.  Conflict Arising From Payment for Legal Services  17.13
      • 5.  Conflict Arising From Legal Position Taken  17.14
  • V.  GATHERING INFORMATION TO EVALUATE AND PREPARE WRIT PETITION
    • A.  Obtaining Copy of Order to Be Challenged  17.15
    • B.  Obtaining Register of Actions  17.16
    • C.  Obtaining All Potentially Relevant Pleadings and Trial Court Documents  17.17
    • D.  Obtaining Reporter’s Transcript  17.18
    • E.  Preparing Declaration if Hearing Transcript Unavailable  17.19
    • F.  Obtaining Sample Writ Petition  17.20
  • VI.  PRELIMINARY RESEARCH ON CHALLENGED ORDER OR RULING
    • A.  Determining if Challenged Order or Ruling Is Appealable
      • 1.  Writ Relief Is Presumptively Unavailable if Order Is Appealable  17.21
      • 2.  Exceptions to Presumption Against Writ Relief for Appealable Orders  17.22
    • B.  Determining Whether Statute Provides for Writ Review  17.23
      • 1.  Is Order Reviewable Only by Writ Petition?  17.24
      • 2.  Is Writ Petition Prerequisite for Postjudgment Review on Appeal?  17.25
    • C.  Calculating Deadline to File Writ Petition  17.26
  • VII.  DETERMINING WHETHER APPELLATE COURT IS LIKELY TO GRANT EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF  17.27
    • A.  Most Writ Petitions Are Denied  17.28
    • B.  Is Writ Review on the Merits Required?  17.29
    • C.  Is There an Adequate Remedy at Law?  17.30
    • D.  Does Petitioner Face Irreparable Injury?  17.31
    • E.  Is Writ Relief Necessary to Decide Important Issue?  17.32
    • F.  What Is the Standard of Appellate Review?  17.33
  • VIII.  POTENTIAL BENEFITS AND RISKS OF SEEKING WRIT
    • A.  Benefits of Seeking Writ  17.34
    • B.  Risks of Seeking Writ  17.35
  • IX.  CHART: REVIEW METHOD FOR SUPERIOR COURT ORDERS  17.36

18

Initiating a Writ Proceeding in the Court of Appeal

Terry P. Anastassiou

Susan H. Handelman

  • I.  INTRODUCTION  18.1
    • A.  Scope of Chapter  18.2
    • B.  Seeking Appropriate Type of Writ  18.3
    • C.  Checklist for Petitioner  18.4
  • II.  DRAFTING THE PETITION
    • A.  Format Requirements  18.5
      • 1.  In General
        • a.  Type of Paper  18.6
        • b.  Manner of Production  18.7
        • c.  Length  18.8
        • d.  Font  18.9
        • e.  Page Layout  18.10
        • f.  Binding  18.11
      • 2.  Cover (Caption) Page  18.12
        • a.  Document Title  18.13
        • b.  Court Title  18.14
        • c.  Trial Court Information  18.15
        • d.  Case Numbers  18.16
        • e.  Identifying Counsel  18.17
        • f.  Identifying Parties  18.18
        • g.  If Requesting Stay  18.19
        • h.  If Related Appeal  18.20
    • B.  Contents of Petition
      • 1.  Certificate of Interested Entities or Persons  18.21
      • 2.  Tables
        • a.  Table of Contents  18.22
        • b.  Table of Authorities  18.23
      • 3.  Introductory Statement  18.24
      • 4.  Enumerated Allegations  18.25
        • a.  If There Is Related Appeal  18.26
        • b.  Jurisdiction  18.27
        • c.  Standing  18.28
        • d.  Prior Petitions  18.29
        • e.  Factual Allegations  18.30
          • (1)  Procedural Facts  18.31
          • (2)  Other Material Facts  18.32
          • (3)  Facts Showing Petition’s Timeliness  18.33
          • (4)  Facts Addressing Inadequacy of Other Remedies  18.34
          • (5)  Facts Showing Preservation of Issue in Trial Court  18.35
      • 5.  Prayer for Relief  18.36
        • a.  If Seeking Immediate Stay  18.37
        • b.  If Seeking Issuance of Peremptory Writ in First Instance  18.38
        • c.  If Seeking Issuance of Alternative Writ or Order to Show Cause  18.39
        • d.  If Seeking Writ of Review (Certiorari)  18.40
        • e.  Requesting Costs and Other Relief  18.41
      • 6.  Verification
        • a.  Petition Must Be Verified  18.42
        • b.  Verification Must Be Based on Personal Knowledge  18.43
        • c.  Party Litigant Usually Must Verify Petition  18.44
        • d.  Verification of Supporting Documents  18.45
        • e.  Verification of Supplemental Evidence  18.46
        • f.  Verification by State or Public Officials  18.47
        • g.  Form: Verification  18.48
      • 7.  Supporting Memorandum  18.49
        • a.  Argument Headings
          • (1)  Use as Effective Advocacy Tool  18.50
          • (2)  Exemplar Headings  18.51
        • b.  Contents
          • (1)  Introduction  18.52
          • (2)  Statement of Facts  18.53
          • (3)  Legal Argument  18.54
            • (a)  Persuasive Arguments  18.55
            • (b)  Legal Support  18.56
      • 8.  The Record; Exhibits  18.57
      • 9.  Request for Stay  18.58
        • a.  Allegations in Support of Stay  18.59
        • b.  Documents in Support of Stay  18.60
      • 10.  Omission or Redaction of Social Security or Financial Account Information  18.60A
  • III.  WHEN TO FILE WRIT PETITION  18.61
    • A.  Determining Maximum Number of Days in Which to File
      • 1.  If Statute Specifies Deadline  18.62
        • a.  Statutory Deadline May Be Short  18.63
        • b.  Statutory Deadlines Generally Treated as Jurisdictional  18.64
        • c.  Extensions Under CCP §1013 Are Generally Inapplicable  18.65
      • 2.  If No Applicable Statutory Deadline
        • a.  60-Day Period Applies  18.66
        • b.  Doctrine of Laches May Apply to Petitions Filed After 60 Days  18.67
        • c.  Court May Exercise Its Discretion and Consider Petitions Filed After 60 Days  18.68
      • 3.  If Order Specifies Due Date for Compliance  18.69
    • B.  Determining When to File Writ Petition
      • 1.  Events That Trigger Time Period to File
        • a.  Entry of Order  18.70
        • b.  Service of Notice of Entry of Order  18.71
        • c.  Mailing of Minute Order  18.72
        • d.  Notice Given in Open Court  18.73
      • 2.  How to Count Days in Which to File  18.74
    • C.  Filing Effective on Receipt by Court  18.75
    • D.  Chart: Time for Filing Petitions  18.76
  • IV.  FILING AND SERVING THE PETITION
    • A.  Serving Procedures
      • 1.  When to Serve  18.77
      • 2.  How to Serve  18.78
      • 3.  Whom to Serve  18.79
      • 4.  Proof of Service  18.80
    • B.  Filing Procedures
      • 1.  What to File
        • a.  Petition  18.81
        • b.  Record  18.82
        • c.  Information Sheet in Fifth District  18.83
      • 2.  Filing Fee  18.84
      • 3.  Where to File  18.85
        • a.  File in Lowest Court Capable of Granting Relief  18.86
        • b.  Locations of Courts of Appeal  18.87

19

Requesting a Stay in an Appellate Court Writ Proceeding

Christina J. Imre

Douglas J. Collodel

  • I.  SCOPE OF CHAPTER  19.1
  • II.  GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
    • A.  Purpose of Stay  19.2
    • B.  Effect of Alternative Writs
      • 1.  Alternative Writ of Mandate or Order to Show Cause Does Not Stay Trial Court Proceedings  19.3
      • 2.  Alternative Writ of Prohibition or Order to Show Cause Stays Trial Court Proceedings  19.4
      • 3.  Order to Show Cause Re Writ of Review (Certiorari) Does Not Stay Trial Court Proceedings  19.5
    • C.  Scope of Stay Request  19.6
  • III.  REQUIREMENTS FOR STAY REQUEST
    • A.  Imminent Injury  19.7
    • B.  Stay Unsuccessfully Sought From Trial Court  19.8
  • IV.  STAY APPLICATION
    • A.  Application Should Be Part of Writ Petition, But Can Be Separate Document  19.9
    • B.  Offer to Provide Undertaking  19.10
    • C.  Preparation of Documents
      • 1.  Cover Requirements  19.11
        • a.  Notice of Stay Request  19.12
        • b.  Trial Court Identifying Information  19.13
      • 2.  Statement of Urgency  19.14
      • 3.  Allegations in Support of Stay  19.15
      • 4.  Documents in Support of Stay  19.16
    • D.  Service of Stay Request
      • 1.  Request Made in Writ Petition  19.17
      • 2.  Request Made in Separate Application  19.18
  • V.  OPPOSITION TO STAY REQUEST  19.19
  • VI.  APPELLATE COURT ACTION ON STAY REQUEST  19.20

20

The Record in Appellate Court Writ Proceedings

David de Jesus

  • I.  SCOPE OF CHAPTER  20.1
  • II.  RECORD REQUIREMENTS  20.2
    • A.  Rules of Court  20.3
    • B.  Necessity of Sufficient Record  20.4
  • III.  PREPARING THE RECORD
    • A.  Who Prepares the Record  20.5
    • B.  What the Record Includes
      • 1.  All Documents Enabling Appellate Court to Review Ruling at Issue  20.6
      • 2.  Opposing Party’s Papers  20.7
      • 3.  Additional Facts as Necessary  20.8
      • 4.  Reporter’s Transcript  20.9
    • C.  Record Requirement for Petition for Writ of Review (Certiorari)  20.10
  • IV.  FORMAT OF THE RECORD
    • A.  Binding of Documents  20.11
    • B.  Indexing, Pagination, and Order of Documents  20.12
    • C.  Visual Quality of Documents  20.13
    • D.  Citation to the Record  20.14
  • V.  SERVING AND FILING THE RECORD
    • A.  Serving the Record  20.15
    • B.  Filing the Record  20.16
  • VI.  JUDICIAL NOTICE  20.17
    • A.  Materials Presented to Trial Court for Judicial Notice  20.18
    • B.  Materials Not Presented to Trial Court for Judicial Notice  20.19
    • C.  Procedure for Requesting Judicial Notice in Appellate Court
      • 1.  Motion Requesting Judicial Notice  20.20
      • 2.  Timing of Request for Judicial Notice  20.21
      • 3.  Opposition to Request for Judicial Notice  20.22
  • VII.  PROTECTING SEALED AND CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS IN THE RECORD
    • A.  Public Policy Favors Open Records  20.23
    • B.  Definitions, Format, and Transmission of Sealed and Confidential Records  20.24
    • C.  Procedures to Seal or Unseal Portions of Record and Briefs
      • 1.  When Trial Court Sealed Records  20.25
      • 2.  When Trial Court Did Not Seal Records
        • a.  Requesting That Appellate Court Seal Records  20.26
        • b.  Lodging the Record  20.27
      • 3.  Unsealing Records  20.28
    • D.  Procedures to Handle Confidential Documents and Records  20.29

21

Preliminary Opposition in an Appellate Court Writ Proceeding

Mary-Christine (M.C.) Sungaila

  • I.  SCOPE OF CHAPTER  21.1
  • II.  RULE OF COURT 8.487(a)  21.2
  • III.  USE OF PRELIMINARY OPPOSITION
    • A.  Purpose of Preliminary Opposition  21.3
    • B.  Preliminary Opposition Is Optional  21.4
    • C.  Preliminary Opposition Not the Same as Opposition Requested by Palma Notice  21.5
    • D.  If Defects Solely Procedural, Consider Short Letter Before Filing Preliminary Opposition  21.6
  • IV.  APPELLATE COURT CAN ACT BEFORE THE FILING OF PRELIMINARY OPPOSITION  21.7
  • V.  CONTENT AND FORMAT OF PRELIMINARY OPPOSITION
    • A.  Content of Preliminary Opposition  21.8
    • B.  Format of Preliminary Opposition
      • 1.  Briefing Format  21.9
      • 2.  Use of Headings  21.10
      • 3.  Citation to the Record  21.11
      • 4.  Citation to Authority  21.12
    • C.  Preliminary Opposition Need Not Be Verified  21.13
  • VI.  TIME TO FILE PRELIMINARY OPPOSITION
    • A.  File Within 10 Days After Writ Petition Is Filed  21.14
    • B.  If Petitioner Requests an Immediate, Temporary Stay
      • 1.  Notifying Court of Intent to Oppose Stay  21.15
      • 2.  Consider Filing Opposition to an Immediate, Temporary Stay Before Filing Preliminary Opposition to the Writ Petition  21.16
      • 3.  Contents of Opposition to Immediate, Temporary Stay  21.17
  • VII.  SERVICE AND FILING FEE
    • A.  Service  21.18
    • B.  Filing Fee  21.19
    • C.  Certificate of Interested Entities or Persons  21.20
  • VIII.  PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PRELIMINARY OPPOSITION  21.21

22

Initial Action by Court of Appeal

Mitchell E. Abbott

James C. Nielsen

  • I.  SCOPE OF CHAPTER  22.1
  • II.  HOW WRIT PETITIONS ARE ASSIGNED FOR HANDLING WITHIN THE COURT OF APPEAL  22.2
    • A.  First District  22.3
    • B.  Second District  22.4
    • C.  Third District  22.5
    • D.  Fourth District  22.6
    • E.  Fifth District  22.7
    • F.  Sixth District  22.8
  • III.  TYPES OF ACTION COURT OF APPEAL MAY TAKE ON A WRIT PETITION  22.9
    • A.  Issuance of Temporary Stay Order  22.10
      • 1.  Actions on Temporary Stay Request  22.11
      • 2.  Contents of Temporary Stay Order  22.12
      • 3.  Notice of Temporary Stay Order  22.13
    • B.  Issuance of Summary Denial
      • 1.  Summary Denial Defined  22.14
      • 2.  When Summary Denial Is Used  22.15
      • 3.  Summary Denial Format  22.16
      • 4.  Summary Denial Does Not Establish Law of Case  22.17
    • C.  Issuance of Palma Notice
      • 1.  Palma Notice Defined  22.18
      • 2.  When Palma Notice Is Used  22.19
      • 3.  When Notice Is Given in Prayer for Relief  22.20
      • 4.  Form of Palma Notice Given by Court of Appeal  22.21
      • 5.  “Suggestive” Palma Notice  22.22
    • D.  Issuance of Alternative Writ or Order to Show Cause
      • 1.  Alternative Writ or Order to Show Cause (OSC) Defined  22.23
      • 2.  When Alternative Writ/Order to Show Cause (OSC) Is Used  22.24
      • 3.  Content and Preparation of Alternative Writ/Order to Show Cause (OSC)  22.25
      • 4.  Service and Filing of Alternative Writ/Order to Show Cause (OSC)  22.26
      • 5.  “Coercive” Alternative Writ  22.27
        • a.  If Trial Court Complies With Alternative Writ  22.28
        • b.  If Trial Court Does Not Comply With Alternative Writ  22.29
  • IV.  ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF REVIEW (CERTIORARI)  22.30

23

Opposition and Reply in an Appellate Court Writ Proceeding

Mary-Christine (M.C.) Sungaila

  • I.  INTRODUCTION
    • A.  Scope of Chapter  23.1
    • B.  Terminology  23.2
  • II.  OPPOSITION AFTER COURT OF APPEAL ISSUES PALMA NOTICE
    • A.  Reason for Filing Opposition  23.3
    • B.  Format of Opposition  23.4
      • 1.  Basic Briefing Structure  23.5
      • 2.  Citation to Record  23.6
      • 3.  Citation to Authority  23.7
      • 4.  Certificate of Interested Entities or Persons  23.8
    • C.  Content of Opposition
      • 1.  Explain Why Court Should Deny Writ Relief  23.9
      • 2.  Do Not Raise New Issues  23.10
    • D.  Timing of Opposition
      • 1.  Court Usually Sets Deadline  23.11
      • 2.  If Court Does Not Set Deadline, File Within 30 Days  23.12
      • 3.  Extensions of Time Available by Request
        • a.  Request for Extension  23.13
        • b.  Good Cause Required  23.14
    • E.  Service and Filing of Opposition
      • 1.  Whom to Serve  23.15
      • 2.  How to File and Serve  23.16
  • III.  REPLY TO PALMA OPPOSITION
    • A.  Format and Content of Reply  23.17
    • B.  Service and Filing of Reply  23.18
  • IV.  RETURN AFTER COURT OF APPEAL ISSUES ALTERNATIVE WRIT OR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE  23.19
    • A.  Return Defined  23.20
      • 1.  Real Party in Interest Usually Files Return  23.21
      • 2.  When Respondent Court May File Return  23.22
      • 3.  When Respondent Is Not Lower Court, Respondent May File Return  23.23
      • 4.  Respondent and Real Party in Interest May File Joint Return  23.24
    • B.  Format of Return  23.25
    • C.  Contents of Return  23.26
    • D.  Certificate of Interested Entities or Persons  23.26A
    • E.  Formal Return  23.27
      • 1.  Answer  23.28
        • a.  Responding to Verified Allegations in the Petition  23.29
        • b.  Alleging Additional Material Facts  23.30
        • c.  Pleading Affirmative Defenses  23.31
        • d.  Verification  23.32
      • 2.  Demurrer  23.33
        • a.  File With Answer  23.34
        • b.  State Grounds for Demurrer  23.35
        • c.  Do Not Raise Affirmative Defenses  23.36
    • F.  Supporting Memorandum  23.37
    • G.  Supporting Exhibits  23.38
    • H.  Timing of Return
      • 1.  Court Usually Sets Deadline  23.39
      • 2.  If Court Does Not Set Deadline, File Within 30 Days  23.40
      • 3.  Extension of Time  23.41
    • I.  Serving Return
      • 1.  Whom to Serve  23.42
      • 2.  How to Serve  23.43
    • J.  Consequences of Not Filing Proper Return  23.44
    • K.  Return in Writ of Review (Certiorari) Proceedings  23.45
      • 1.  Terminology  23.46
      • 2.  Demurrer  23.47
  • V.  REPLY (TRAVERSE) TO RETURN  23.48
    • A.  Format and Content of Reply (Traverse)  23.49
    • B.  Filing and Service of Reply (Traverse)  23.50
  • VI.  CHART: DEADLINES FOR PALMA OPPOSITION AND REPLY, FOR RETURN AND REPLY  23.51
  • VII.  AMICUS CURIAE BRIEFS  23.52
    • A.  Application to File Amicus Brief  23.53
    • B.  Filing and Service of Amicus Brief  23.54
    • C.  Seek Amicus Participation Only in Exceptional Cases  23.55

24

Action by Court of Appeal After Issuance of Palma Notice, Alternative Writ, or Order to Show Cause

Mitchell E. Abbott

James C. Nielsen

  • I.  SCOPE OF CHAPTER  24.1
  • II.  ACTION AFTER ISSUANCE OF PALMA NOTICE
    • A.  Possible Actions After Issuance of Palma Notice  24.2
    • B.  Most Writ Petitions Are Denied  24.3
    • C.  Issuance of Peremptory Writ in First Instance  24.4
    • D.  Issuance of Alternative Writ or Order to Show Cause (OSC)  24.5
  • III.  ACTION AFTER ISSUANCE OF ALTERNATIVE WRIT OR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (OSC)
    • A.  Discharge of Alternative Writ or Order to Show Cause
      • 1.  Writ/Order to Show Cause Improvidently Granted  24.6
      • 2.  Trial Court Complies With Alternative Writ/Order to Show Cause  24.7
    • B.  Oral Argument
      • 1.  Hearing Date  24.8
      • 2.  Conduct of Hearing
        • a.  Parties Present  24.9
        • b.  Order of Argument  24.10
        • c.  Number of Counsel  24.11
        • d.  Time for Argument  24.12
        • e.  Strategy for Argument  24.13
    • C.  Disputed Questions of Fact  24.14
    • D.  Consideration of New Facts  24.14A
    • E.  Written Opinion Granting or Denying Writ Petition
      • 1.  Required When Proceeding Is a “Cause”  24.15
      • 2.  Time for Issuance  24.16
        • a.  Opinion Generally Issued Within 90 Days  24.17
        • b.  Circumstances Extending Time Beyond 90 Days  24.18
      • 3.  Contents of Opinion
        • a.  Must State Reasons  24.19
        • b.  Relief Not Limited by Petition’s Prayer  24.20
        • c.  Grant or Denial of Writ
          • (1)  Granting Writ of Mandate and Prohibition  24.21
          • (2)  Denying Writ of Mandate or Prohibition  24.22
      • 4.  Award of Costs
        • a.  Prevailing Party Usually Entitled to Costs  24.23
        • b.  Opinion Must Specify Costs Award  24.24
        • c.  Costs Awarded Against Parties, Not Trial Court  24.25
        • d.  Items Recoverable as Costs  24.26
        • e.  Procedure for Claiming and Opposing Costs  24.27
      • 5.  Attorney Fees  24.28
      • 6.  Service  24.29
      • 7.  Publication  24.30
  • IV.  DOCUMENTS PREPARED AFTER ISSUANCE OF OPINION
    • A.  Remittitur  24.31
      • 1.  When Issued
        • a.  Not Required After Summary Denial  24.32
        • b.  After Time for Review by Supreme Court Expires  24.33
        • c.  Immediately if Parties Stipulate or Petition Is Dismissed  24.34
      • 2.  Clerk’s Duties  24.35
      • 3.  Stay or Recall of Remittitur  24.36
    • B.  Peremptory Writ of Mandate or Prohibition  24.37
      • 1.  Time for Issuance  24.38
      • 2.  Clerk Usually Prepares Writ  24.39
      • 3.  Clerk Sends Writ to Trial Court  24.40
      • 4.  Service of Writ by Petitioner  24.41
      • 5.  Writ of Review (Certiorari)  24.42
  • V.  ENFORCEMENT OF PEREMPTORY WRIT
    • A.  Respondent’s Return to Peremptory Writ  24.43
      • 1.  Return Not Mandatory  24.44
      • 2.  Contents of Return  24.45
    • B.  Respondent’s Duty to Comply  24.46
    • C.  Remedies if Respondent Refuses to Comply With Writ
      • 1.  Possible Remedies  24.47
        • a.  Enforcement Orders  24.48
        • b.  Fine  24.49
        • c.  Imprisonment  24.50
      • 2.  Procedure for Compelling Compliance With Writ
        • a.  Motion or New Writ Petition  24.51
        • b.  Challenging Respondent’s Return  24.52
    • D.  Methods of Enforcing Decision in Writ of Review (Certiorari) Proceeding  24.53
    • E.  Cost Awards Enforceable in Same Manner as Money Judgments Generally  24.54
  • VI.  TRANSFER OF CASE FROM COURT OF APPEAL TO CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT BEFORE DECISION  24.55
    • A.  Who Requests Transfer  24.56
    • B.  How to Request Transfer  24.57
    • C.  When to Request Transfer  24.58
    • D.  Responding to Request for Transfer  24.59
  • VII.  SANCTIONS FOR FRIVOLOUS WRIT PETITIONS  24.60
    • A.  Against Party or Attorney  24.61
    • B.  Procedure for Obtaining Sanctions  24.62
    • C.  Types of Sanctions
      • 1.  Striking Pleading  24.63
      • 2.  Award or Denial of Costs  24.64
      • 3.  Attorney Fees or Damages  24.65

25

Review of Court of Appeal’s Action on Writ Petition

H. Thomas Watson

  • I.  SCOPE OF CHAPTER  25.1
  • II.  POSSIBLE COURT OF APPEAL ACTIONS ON WRIT PETITIONS  25.2
  • III.  WHEN TO SEEK RELIEF FROM A COURT OF APPEAL’S ACTION ON A WRIT PETITION  25.3
    • A.  Importance of Finality of Court of Appeal’s Action  25.4
    • B.  When Court of Appeal’s Action Becomes Final
      • 1.  Summary Denial Final When Filed  25.5
      • 2.  Decision on Merits Final After 30 Days  25.6
        • a.  30-Day Period May Be Shortened by Court  25.7
        • b.  30-Day Period Shortened When It Ends on Day Court Closed  25.8
      • 3.  Postdecision Actions That May Affect Finality Date
        • a.  Modification of Decision  25.9
        • b.  Publication of Decision  25.10
  • IV.  HOW TO CHALLENGE COURT OF APPEAL ACTION ON WRIT PETITION  25.11
    • A.  Motion to Discharge Alternative Writ or Order to Show Cause  25.12
      • 1.  Alternative Writ or Order to Show Cause Generally Creates “Cause”  25.13
      • 2.  Alternative Writ or Order to Show Cause May Be Discharged  25.14
    • B.  Modification of Court of Appeal Decision  25.15
    • C.  Petition for Rehearing in the Court of Appeal  25.16
      • 1.  Grounds for Rehearing  25.17
      • 2.  Standing to Seek Rehearing  25.18
      • 3.  Time Limits for Seeking Rehearing  25.19
      • 4.  Petition for Rehearing
        • a.  Contents of Petition for Rehearing  25.20
        • b.  Format of Petition for Rehearing  25.21
      • 5.  Answer to Petition for Rehearing  25.22
      • 6.  Chart: Rehearing in Court of Appeal  25.23
      • 7.  Petition for Rehearing
        • a.  Denial and Denial by Operation of Law  25.24
        • b.  Granting Rehearing  25.25
    • D.  Petition for Review by the California Supreme Court  25.26
      • 1.  Petitions for Review Rarely Granted  25.27
        • a.  Same or Similar Issue in Pending Case Before Court  25.28
        • b.  Review Sought to Exhaust State Court Remedies  25.29
      • 2.  Petitions for Review Only Means of Challenging Summary Denial Order  25.30
    • E.  Petition for Certiorari by the United States Supreme Court  25.31

26

Petition for Writ of Supersedeas

Jeremy B. Rosen

  • I.  SCOPE OF CHAPTER  26.1
  • II.  WRIT OF SUPERSEDEAS DEFINED
    • A.  What Is a Writ of Supersedeas?  26.2
    • B.  When to Seek Supersedeas Relief  26.3
    • C.  The Likelihood of Supersedeas Relief  26.4
  • III.  SUPERSEDEAS RELIEF IF TRIAL COURT OR OPPONENT ACTS IN VIOLATION OF STATUTORY STAY PROVISIONS  26.5
    • A.  Matters Automatically Stayed by Filing Appeal  26.6
      • 1.  When Matter Is Embraced in or Affected by Judgment or Order  26.7
      • 2.  Examples of Matters Embraced in or Affected by Judgment or Order  26.8
      • 3.  Mandatory Injunctions Stayed by Filing Appeal  26.9
      • 4.  Mandamus Judgments Stayed by Filing Appeal  26.10
    • B.  Matters Not Stayed by Filing Notice of Appeal
      • 1.  Chart: Judgments and Orders Subject to CCP §§917.1–917.9  26.11
      • 2.  Money Judgments for Which Undertaking (Bond) Is Posted Under CCP §917.1  26.12
      • 3.  Other Judgments and Orders Stayed on Filing Undertaking (Bond) Under CCP §917.9  26.13
    • C.  Collateral Matters Are Not Stayed by Filing Appeal  26.14
      • 1.  When Matter Is Collateral  26.15
      • 2.  Examples of Collateral Matters Appeal  26.16
  • IV.  SUPERSEDEAS RELIEF IN APPELLATE COURT’S INHERENT DISCRETION
    • A.  Appellate Court’s Inherent Power to Grant Supersedeas Relief  26.17
    • B.  Factors Bearing on Discretionary Supersedeas Relief  26.18
    • C.  Situations in Which Discretionary Supersedeas May Be Appropriate
      • 1.  Appeal From Unbonded Money Judgment  26.19
      • 2.  When Judgment or Order Is Subject to CCP §§917.1–917.9 and Appellant Has Not Complied With Conditions for Stay  26.20
      • 3.  Prohibitory Injunctions  26.21
  • V.  HOW TO PETITION FOR AND OPPOSE THE ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF SUPERSEDEAS
    • A.  Petition for Writ of Supersedeas
      • 1.  Contents of Petition
        • a.  General Requirements  26.22
        • b.  Contents if Record on Appeal Has Not Yet Been Filed  26.23
        • c.  Documents Filed With Petition  26.24
      • 2.  When Requesting Temporary Stay  26.25
      • 3.  Format of Petition  26.26
      • 4.  Filing and Service of Petition  26.27
    • B.  Opposition
      • 1.  Contents of Opposition  26.28
      • 2.  Format of Opposition  26.29
      • 3.  Filing and Service of Opposition  26.30

27

Petitions in the California Supreme Court

Robert M. Dato

  • I.  SCOPE OF CHAPTER  27.1
  • II.  ORIGINAL WRIT PETITIONS
    • A.  When Original Jurisdiction Is Appropriate  27.2
      • 1.  When Original Writ Is Exclusive Method of Review  27.3
        • a.  Decisions of the Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission  27.4
        • b.  Decisions of the Public Utilities Commission  27.5
        • c.  Decisions of the State Bar Court  27.6
        • d.  Decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board  27.7
      • 2.  When Extraordinary Circumstances Warrant Bypassing Lower Courts  27.8
      • 3.  When Only Supreme Court Can Grant Writ Relief  27.9
    • B.  Filing Petition in Original Proceeding
      • 1.  Timing and Procedures for Filing; Fees  27.10
      • 2.  Content and Format of Petition  27.11
  • III.  PETITIONS FOR REVIEW  27.12
    • A.  Grounds for Petition for Review  27.13
    • B.  Deciding Whether to Seek Review  27.14
    • C.  Procedures for Filing Petition, Answer, and Reply
      • 1.  Timing
        • a.  Petition  27.15
          • (1)  No Extension for Holiday or Weekend  27.16
          • (2)  Relief From Failure to File Timely Petition for Review  27.17
        • b.  Answer; Filing Fee  27.18
        • c.  Reply  27.19
      • 2.  Format  27.20
        • a.  Length  27.21
        • b.  Attachments  27.22
        • c.  Cover  27.23
        • d.  Number of Copies  27.24
      • 3.  Contents
        • a.  Petition for Review  27.25
        • b.  Answer  27.26
        • c.  Reply  27.27
      • 4.  Chart: Filing Requirements for Petition for Supreme Court Review  27.28
    • D.  Disposition
      • 1.  Types of Rulings  27.29
        • a.  Supreme Court Denies Petition for Review  27.30
        • b.  Supreme Court Grants Petition for Review  27.31
        • c.  Supreme Court Transfers Matter to Court of Appeal  27.32
      • 2.  Timing of Court’s Action  27.33

28

Court of Appeal and Supreme Court Forms

  • I.  FORM: PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE, PROHIBITION, OR OTHER APPROPRIATE RELIEF  28.1
  • II.  FORM: CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED ENTITIES OR PERSONS (JUDICIAL COUNCIL FORM APP-008)  28.2
  • III.  FORM: TABLE OF EXHIBITS  28.3
  • IV.  FORM: PRELIMINARY OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE, PROHIBITION, OR OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT AND STAY REQUEST  28.4
  • V.  FORM: SUMMARY DENIAL  28.5
  • VI.  FORM: ALTERNATIVE WRIT/ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE  28.6
  • VII.  FORM: PALMA NOTICE (ORDER)  28.7
  • VIII.  FORM: PALMA NOTICE (LETTER)  28.8
  • IX.  FORM: “SUGGESTIVE” PALMA NOTICE  28.9
  • X.  FORM: OPPOSITION TO ISSUANCE OF PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE IN THE FIRST INSTANCE  28.10
  • XI.  FORM: RETURN TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE, PROHIBITION, OR OTHER ALTERNATIVE RELIEF  28.11
  • XII.  FORM: TRAVERSE TO RETURN  28.12
  • XIII.  FORM: ORDER DIRECTING ISSUANCE OF PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE  28.13
  • XIV.  FORM: ORDER DISCHARGING ALTERNATIVE WRIT AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED  28.14
  • XV.  FORM: PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE  28.15
  • XVI.  FORM: PETITION FOR REVIEW (CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT)  28.16
  • XVII.  FORM: AMICUS CURIAE LETTER BRIEF  28.17
  • XVIII.  FORM: PETITION FOR WRIT OF SUPERSEDEAS  28.18
  • XIX.  FORM: ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF SUPERSEDEAS  28.19
  • XX.  FORM: PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (JUDICIAL COUNCIL FORM MC-275)  28.20
  • XXI.  FORM: PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS OR CERTIORARI (FILED BY ATTORNEY)  28.21
  • XXII.  FORM: APPELLATE COURT WRIT PETITION INFORMATION SHEET (FIFTH DISTRICT)  28.22

CALIFORNIA CIVIL WRIT PRACTICE

(4th Edition)

Table of Contents

File Name

Book Section

Title

CH03

Chapter 3

Administrative Mandamus

03-020

§3.20

Checklist: Determining Appropriate Writ

CH05

Chapter 5

Initiating a Superior Court Writ Proceeding

05-041

§5.41

Petitioner

05-042

§5.42

Respondent

05-043

§5.43

Real Party in Interest

05-044

§5.44

When Petition Challenges Nonjudicial Action

05-045

§5.45

When Petitioner Is Party to Ongoing Administrative Proceeding

05-054

§5.54

Absence or Inadequacy of Other Remedies

05-056

§5.56

Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

05-060

§5.60

Types of Relief

05-061

§5.61

Costs and Attorney Fees

05-062

§5.62

Other Appropriate Relief

05-063

§5.63

Signature Block

05-069

§5.69

Verification

05-128

§5.128

Checklist: Pitfalls to Avoid

CH06

Chapter 6

Requesting a Stay in a Superior Court Writ Proceeding

06-039

§6.39

Checklist: Obtaining Stay Order

CH13

Chapter 13

Superior Court Forms

13-001

§13.1

Form: Verified Petition for Alternative Writ of Mandate and Verified Complaint for Declaratory Relief

13-002

§13.2

Ex Parte Application for Alternative Writ of Mandate and Order to Show Cause

13-003

§13.3

Memorandum in Support of Ex Parte Application for Alternative Writ of Mandate and Order to Show Cause

13-004

§13.4

Declaration of Notice in Support of Ex Parte Application for Alternative Writ of Mandate and Order to Show Cause

13-005

§13.5

Proposed Order Directing Issuance of Alternative Writ of Mandate

13-006

§13.6

Alternative Writ of Mandate

13-007

§13.7

Notice of Hearing on Petition for Writ of Mandate

13-008

§13.8

Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause

13-009

§13.9

Proposed Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause

13-010

§13.10

Demurrer to Petition for Writ of Mandate

13-011

§13.11

Memorandum in Support of Demurrer to Petition for Writ of Mandate

13-012

§13.12

Opposition to Petition for Writ of Mandate

13-013

§13.13

Request for Judicial Notice in Opposition to Petition for Writ of Mandate

13-014

§13.14

Declaration in Opposition to Petition for Writ of Mandate

13-015

§13.15

Proposed Order Denying Petition for Writ of Mandate

CH18

Chapter 18

Initiating a Writ Proceeding in the Court of Appeal

18-004

§18.4

Checklist for Petitioner

18-014

§18.14

Court Title

18-024

§18.24

Introductory Statement

18-038

§18.38

If Seeking Issuance of Peremptory Writ in First Instance

18-039

§18.39

If Seeking Issuance of Alternative Writ or Order to Show Cause

18-040

§18.40

If Seeking Writ of Review (Certiorari)

18-045

§18.45

Verification of Supporting Documents

18-048

§18.48

Verification

18-051

§18.51

Exemplar Headings

CH24

Chapter 24

Action by Court of Appeal After Issuance of Palma Notice, Alternative Writ, or Order to Show Cause

24-021

§24.21

Granting Writ of Mandate and Prohibition

CH28

Chapter 28

Court of Appeal and Supreme Court Forms

28-001

§28.1

Form: Petition for Writ of Mandate, Prohibition, or Other Appropriate Relief

28-004

§28.4

Form: Preliminary Opposition to Petition for Writ of Mandate, Prohibition, or Other Appropriate Writ and Stay Request

28-005

§28.5

Form: Summary Denial

28-006

§28.6

Form: Alternative Writ/Order to Show Cause

28-007

§28.7

Form: Palma Notice (Order)

28-008

§28.8

Form: Palma Notice (Letter)

28-009

§28.9

Form: “Suggestive” Palma Notice

28-010

§28.10

Form: Opposition to Issuance of Peremptory Writ of Mandate in the First Instance

28-011

§28.11

Form: Return to Petition for Writ of Mandate, Prohibition, or Other Alternative Relief

28-012

§28.12

Form: Traverse to Return

28-013

§28.13

Form: Order Directing Issuance of Peremptory Writ of Mandate

28-014

§28.14

Form: Order Discharging Alternative Writ as Improvidently Granted

28-015

§28.15

Form: Peremptory Writ of Mandate

28-016

§28.16

Form: Petition for Review (California Supreme Court)

28-017

§28.17

Form: Amicus Curiae Letter Brief

28-018

§28.18

Form: Petition for Writ of Supersedeas

28-019

§28.19

Form: Order Granting Petition for Writ of Supersedeas

28-021

§28.21

Form: Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus or Certiorari (Filed By Attorney)

 

Selected Developments

January 2018 Update

Traditional Mandate

  • In nearly all instances, a writ of mandate issued by a superior court compels action by a nonjudicial body, i.e., a governmental body, administrative agency, private corporation, or association, or by an official or employee of a governmental body or private entity. Ochoa v Anaheim City Sch. Dist. (2017) 11 CA5th 209, 223 (writ compelling school district to act on charter school request). See §2.1.

  • Although the basic requirements for traditional mandate must all be met, appellate court opinions in writ cases originating in the trial courts seldom discuss them at length, if at all, unless the issue on appeal involves the petitioner’s beneficial interest or the inadequacy of other relief. Skulason v California Bureau of Real Estate (2017) 14 CA5th 562, 567 (examining whether respondent had mandatory ministerial duty); SJJC Aviation Servs., LLC v City of San Jose (2017) 12 CA5th 1043, 1053 (examining whether petitioner had beneficial interest or public interest citizen standing to seek writ relief). Usually, appellate opinions address the substantive merits of the trial court’s judgment in a writ proceeding, although some opinions recite the basic requirements for writ relief without further discussion. Jacobs v Regents of Univ. of Cal. (2017) 13 CA5th 17, 24 (reciting requirements). See §2.3.

  • A ministerial duty is imposed on a person in public office who, by virtue of that position, is obligated to perform in a legally prescribed manner when a given state of facts exists. Cape Concord Homeowners Ass’n v City of Escondido (2017) 7 CA5th 180, 189. See §2.6.

  • To establish an abuse of discretion, the petitioner “must show the official acted arbitrarily, beyond the bounds of reason or in derogation of the applicable legal standards.” Ochoa v Anaheim City Sch. Dist. (2017) 11 CA5th 209, 223 n3. See §2.9.

  • “[T]he public interest exception is not a gateway to standing for any individual or entity.” SJJC Aviation Servs., LLC v City of San Jose (2017) 12 CA5th 1043, 1057 (“No party, individual or corporate, may proceed with a mandamus petition as a matter of right under the public interest exception”). See §2.13.

  • In Ramirez v Tulare County Dist. Attorney’s Office (2017) 9 CA5th 911, 933, the court discussed the exhaustion requirement, but concluded that exhaustion was not required “under the unique circumstances presented.” See §§2.16, 2.34.

  • Mandate will not lie to compel a governmental body or public official to exercise discretion in a particular way. Skulason v California Bureau of Real Estate (2017) 14 CA5th 562, 571. See §2.22.

  • Traditional mandate will issue to compel administrative agencies and their officials and employees to perform legally required ministerial duties. Ochoa v Anaheim City Sch. Dist. (2017) 11 CA5th 209, 213 (mandate compelling school district to act on charter school petition). See §2.28.

  • A petitioner generally must not only have exhausted other procedural avenues but also have advanced the arguments subsequently advanced in the courts. Clary v City of Crescent City (2017) 11 CA5th 274, 294 (in administrative mandamus case, court refused to consider arguments petitioner did not make during administrative proceedings). See §2.34.

  • Sometimes cases do not discuss the standard of review applicable to the challenged action, but discuss only the standard of review on appeal applicable to the particular procedural means by which the trial court disposed of the pending writ proceeding. SJJC Aviation Servs., LLC v City of San Jose (2017) 12 CA5th 1043, 1051 (reciting standard of review on appeal from judgment of dismissal following sustaining of demurrer without leave to amend). See §2.38B.

  • Traditional mandate will lie to compel county and registrar of voters to place on county ballot an initiative measure. Wilson v County of Napa (2017) 9 CA5th 178, 183. See §2.46.

Initiating a Superior Court Writ Proceeding

  • In the absence of a special statutory deadline, the statute of limitations applicable to the right or obligation sought to be enforced fixes the outside time limit for filing a writ petition. Ramirez v Tulare County Dist. Attorney’s Office (2017) 9 CA5th 911, 935. See §5.73.

  • A writ may not provide full and complete relief. In such cases, the petitioner can file a combined initial pleading—a petition and a complaint for damages, declaratory relief, or injunctive relief, as may be appropriate. SJJC Aviation Servs., LLC v City of San Jose (2017) 12 CA5th 1043, 1050 (combined petition for writ of mandate and complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief). See §5.119.

The Record in Superior Court Writ Proceedings

  • Extra-record evidence is evidence that was not presented during the underlying governmental or private proceedings. This evidence can include matters that are judicially noticeable, although judicial notice is most often requested in support of a legal argument (e.g., the legislative history of a statute for a statutory construction argument), rather than to establish the operative facts. Ochoa v Anaheim City Sch. Dist. (2017) 11 CA5th 209, 221 (granting some judicial notice requests, denying others); Bonome v City of Riverside (2017) 10 CA5th 14, 20 (superior court took judicial notice of legislative history, but concluded statutory language was clear). See §7.9.

Responsive Pleadings and Petitioner’s Reply in Superior Court Writ Proceedings

  • A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of a writ petition. SJJC Aviation Servs., LLC v City of San Jose (2017) 12 CA5th 1043, 1051 (trial court sustained demurrers to petition for writ of mandate; affirmed on appeal). See §8.40.

  • A motion for judgment on the writ can be made under CCP §1094. Skulason v California Bureau of Real Estate (2017) 14 CA5th 562, 566 (after respondent filed answer, petitioner moved for judgment on her writ petition; judgment reversed on merits on appeal). See §8.51.

  • A petitioner could make a motion for judgment on the pleadings instead of a demurrer to the answer. A respondent or real party in interest might make this motion after the petitioner has filed a replication (reply) to the answer. DiCarlo v County of Monterey (2017) 12 CA5th 468, 479 (respondents variously demurred, moved for summary adjudication, and moved for judgment on pleadings). See §8.53.

Action by Superior Court

  • If there are material factual disputes that the superior court must decide, counsel can request that the court prepare a statement of decision explaining the factual and legal bases for the court’s decision on each material issue. Ochoa v Anaheim City Sch. Dist. (2017) 11 CA5th 209, 224 (“A hearing on a petition for writ of mandamus constitutes a ‘trial of a question of fact’ within the meaning of section 632 of the Code of Civil Procedure and therefore requires a statement of decision upon a timely request”). See §9.34.

Enforcing Writs Issued by Superior Court

  • An appeal may be an acceptable reason for not complying with a writ. Ochoa v Anaheim City Sch. Dist. (2017) 11 CA5th 209, 220 (in its return, school district advised court that it had not complied with writ due to filing notice of appeal). See §10.8.

Challenging the Superior Court’s Decision

  • Because a superior court’s final decision on a writ petition disposing of all the issues between the parties is deemed a final judgment (see CCP §1064), an aggrieved party must seek review of the decision in the court of appeal by filing an appeal, not by initiating a writ proceeding. Skulason v California Bureau of Real Estate (2017) 14 CA5th 562, 567 (respondent appealed from judgment granting writ petition and from order awarding attorney fees); Wilson v County of Napa (2017) 9 CA5th 178, 183 (petitioners appealed from denial of their petition for writ of mandate). See §11.7.

  • In DiCarlo v County of Monterey (2017) 12 CA5th 468, 480, the court of appeal directed the petitioners to return to the superior court for a final judgment after the lower court granted a motion for judgment as to one respondent, and a motion for summary adjudication by another, and then deemed the petitioners’ appeal to be from that judgment. This reflects the well-established rule that an appeal lies not from an order granting a motion for summary judgment but, rather, from the ensuing judgment. See §11.8.

  • In its discretion, an appellate court may treat an improper appeal as a writ proceeding and review the proffered issues on the merits. Yolanda’s, Inc. v Kahl & Goveia Commercial Real Estate (2017) 11 CA5th 509, 511 (treating appeal from nonappealable postjudgment discovery order as writ petition). But see Chango Coffee, Inc. v Applied Underwriters, Inc. (2017) 11 CA5th 1247, 1254 n4 (refusing to treat appeal from nonappealable order as writ petition because ostensible petitioner failed to appeal from original appealable order). See §11.9.

  • An order made after a final decision granting or denying a writ petition is appealable. Skulason v California Bureau of Real Estate (2017) 14 CA5th 562, 567 (respondent appealed from judgment granting writ petition and from order awarding attorney fees). But see Yolanda’s, Inc. v Kahl & Goveia Commercial Real Estate (2017) 11 CA5th 509, 512 (discussing split as to whether postjudgment discovery order in connection with debtor’s examination is appealable and opting not to decide issue but to treat purported appeal as writ petition). See §11.13.

  • An interlocutory ruling in a superior court writ action, by definition, is not a final decision resolving all issues and claims between the parties. Accordingly, such rulings are not generally appealable. City of Los Angeles v Superior Court (2017) 9 CA5th 272, 281 (in superior court Public Records Act writ proceeding, respondent sought interlocutory writ relief from discovery order in court of appeal). See §11.14.

  • In a traditional mandate proceeding under CCP §1085, the appellate standard of review will vary depending on the nature of the writ proceeding and the issues presented on appeal. The appellate court is ordinarily confined to deciding whether the trial court’s findings and judgment are supported by substantial evidence, but legal questions, including the ultimate determination of whether administrative proceedings were fundamentally fair, are reviewed de novo. Skulason v California Bureau of Real Estate (2017) 14 CA5th 562, 567 (when facts are undisputed, whether respondent has mandatory ministerial duty presents question of law reviewed de novo on appeal); SJJC Aviation Servs., LLC v City of San Jose (2017) 12 CA5th 1043, 1051 (de novo review of dismissal of writ petition following sustaining of demurrer); Ochoa v Anaheim City Sch. Dist. (2017) 11CA5th 209, 223 (although ordinarily appellate review is confined to whether findings and judgment of trial court in writ proceeding are supported by substantial evidence, when issue is one of law, appellate review is de novo); Coyne v City and County of San Francisco (2017) 9 CA5th 1215, 1224 (when writ proceeding involves interpretation of statute, appellate review is de novo). See §11.16.

  • Briefing should be scrupulously faithful to the record. All factual statements should be supported by a citation to the record. Overstating or misstating the facts will hurt the party’s credibility. Similarly, briefing should fairly and accurately cite legal authorities. Clary v City of Crescent City (2017) 11 CA5th 274, 294 (appellate court refused to consider argument based on selectively quoted constitutional provision and unsupported by relevant authority). Generally, a party must adhere on appeal to the theory on which the case was presented and tried in the superior court. However, an appellate court may, in its discretion, consider a new theory advanced on appeal when, for example, the new theory involves a purely legal issue that raises no new facts. Tract No. 7260 Ass’n, Inc. v Parker (2017) 10 CA5th 24, 36. See §11.28.

  • The party prevailing in the court of appeal in a civil case is generally entitled to costs on appeal. Skulason v California Bureau of Real Estate (2017) 14 CA5th 562, 573 (prevailing respondent awarded costs). See §11.33.

  • In superior court Public Records Act writ proceeding, the respondent sought interlocutory writ relief from discovery order in court of appeal, which was granted in part. City of Los Angeles v Superior Court (2017) 9 CA5th 272, 275. See §11.37.

Common Appellate Writs and Basic Requirements

  • Mandate has issued to compel trial courts to hold jury trial rather than court trial. Monster, LLC v Superior Court (2017) 12 CA5th 1214, 1219. See §15.8.

  • The courts of appeal also sometimes characterize legal error by the trial court as an abuse of discretion. Haniff v Superior Court (2017) 9 CA5th 191, 198 (although generally standard of review of evidentiary ruling is for abuse of discretion, discretion must be exercised within bounds of law, and action that “transgresses” legal principles constitutes “abuse” of discretion). See §15.13.

  • A writ of supersedeas is a procedural tool that may be used to secure a stay on appeal. Thus, it is unlike the other writs, which are original proceedings. By its nature, supersedeas is always ancillary to a pending appeal and suspends the trial court’s power to act on an appealed order or judgment until the appeal has run its course. Quiles v Parent (2017) 10 CA5th 130, 136 (“writ of supersedeas is an appellate court order suspending the enforcement of a trial court judgment or order while an appeal is pending”). See §§15.49, 26.2–26.3.

  • Appeal does not become an inadequate remedy merely because a party fails to file a timely notice of appeal. Chango Coffee, Inc. v Applied Underwriters, Inc. (2017) 11 CA5th 1247, 1254 n4 (refusing to treat appeal from nonappealable order as writ petition when putative appellant failed to file timely appeal from prior appealable order). See §15.58.

  • A petitioner must show that he or she will suffer irreparable injury if the appellate court fails to immediately intervene. Elliott Homes, Inc. v Superior Court (review granted Mar. 15, 2017, S239804; opinion at 6 CA5th 333 to remain published and citable until further order) (refusal to enforce prelitigation requirement effectively deprived defendant of benefit of statute). See §15.61.

  • An appellate court may grant writ relief when a trial court’s ruling has deprived the petitioner of the opportunity to present a significant portion of its case. Immediate appellate review may save the trial court and parties substantial time and resources. Monster, LLC v Superior Court (2017) 12 CA5th 1214, 1224 (although denial of jury trial is reviewable on appeal, better practice is review by writ to avoid needless expenditure of time on court trial). See §15.63.

  • If the petition raises an issue of public interest, particularly one likely to recur in future cases, an appellate court may decide the case, even though the issue is otherwise moot. Ogunsalu v Superior Court(2017) 12 CA5th 107, 111 (although administrative hearing that petitioner sought to continue had occurred and rendered petition moot, vexatious litigant issue was matter of continuing public importance capable of repetition). See §15.67.

Availability of Appellate Writ Relief

  • When the trial court’s ruling is a mixed question of fact and law, the appellate court gives deference to the trial court’s factual findings and reviews de novo the trial court’s application of law to facts. See Ford Motor Warranty Cases (2017) 11 CA5th 626, 636. See §16.10.

  • Because CCP §437c provides for writ review of “an order” other than an order granting summary judgment, orders granting or denying summary adjudication are reviewable by writ. Tucker Ellis LLP v Superior Court(2017) 12 CA5th 1233, 1240 (writ review of order granting summary adjudication on issue of duty was appropriate to prevent needless trial on nonactionable claim); CRST, Inc. v Superior Court (2017) 11 CA5th 1255, 1259 (writ review of order denying summary adjudication on punitive damages claims). See §16.68.

  • If either party unsuccessfully moves for summary judgment or summary adjudication, that party may seek immediate appellate review by writ. CRST, Inc. v Superior Court (2017) 11 CA5th 1255, 1259. See §16.69.

  • On writ review, the court of appeal reviews de novo the trial court’s decision to grant summary adjudication or deny summary judgment or summary adjudication. It is not bound by the trial court’s stated reasons or rationales. Tucker Ellis LLP v Superior Court(2017) 12 CA5th 1233, 1240 (grant of summary adjudication); CRST, Inc. v Superior Court (2017) 11 CA5th 1255, 1259 (denial of summary adjudication). See §16.77.

  • Writ review is proper when arbitration is ordered on the basis of erroneous legal rulings, which may result in needless delay and expense. Aanderud v Superior Court (2017) 13 CA5th 880, 888. See §16.100.

  • If a trial court erroneously overrules a demurrer there may be a needless and significant expenditure of resources absent immediate appellate review. Accordingly, in the interest of judicial economy, a writ may issue to review an order overruling a demurrer. City of Pasadena v Superior Court (2017) 12 CA5th 1340, 1346 n3 (writ review of order overruling demurrer proper when “significant issue” was presented and claim filing defense would be “effectively lost” if city was required to go to trial). See §16.108.

  • Courts may grant writ review of a discovery order if it: (1) compels production of privileged information; (2) prevents a party from having a fair opportunity to litigate a case; or (3) involves unresolved issues of first impression and importance to the trial courts and bar. City of Los Angeles v Superior Court (2017) 9 CA5th 272, 282; Haniff v Superior Court (2017) 9 CA5th 191, 197. See §16.115.

  • Mandate is available to review contempt orders. Inland Counties Reg’l Ctr., Inc. v Superior Court (2017) 10 CA5th 820, 827 (stating review will lie by certiorari, but ordering issuance of peremptory writ of mandate). See §16.140.

  • In Shaw v Superior Court (2017) 2 C5th 983, 993, the California Supreme Court held that a trial court ruling denying a request for a jury trial may be challenged before trial by a petition for an extraordinary writ, overruling a line of cases holding that an order denying a jury trial request could only be reviewed by appeal after the trial had been completed. See Monster, LLC v Superior Court (2017) 12 CA5th 1214, 1224 (citing Shaw and granting writ relief from trial court’s order that attorney fees sought as damages would be tried by court, not by jury). See §16.148.

  • Whether a statute affords a party a jury trial is a pure question of law that an appellate court reviews de novo. See Monster, LLC v Superior Court (2017) 12 CA5th 1214, 1224. See §16.149.

Requesting a Stay in an Appellate Court Writ Proceeding

  • The issuance of an alternative writ of mandate or order to show cause (OSC), in and of itself, does not automatically stay the challenged trial court ruling or further trial court proceedings. S.V. v Superior Court (2017) 13 CA5th 1174, 1178 (court issued alternative writ of mandate and stayed challenged order). See §19.3.

Initial Action by Court of Appeal

  • At the outset of a writ proceeding, the court of appeal may request informal opposition and then issue an alternative writ or order to show cause. Tucker Ellis LLP v Superior Court (2017) 12 CA5th 1233, 1240). See §22.9.

  • The court of appeal may issue a temporary stay without taking further action at that time, or it may issue a stay order in conjunction with other action, e.g., issuance of an alternative writ. City of Pasadena v Superior Court (2017) 12 CA5th 1340, 1346 (court issued order to show cause and temporary stay order). See §22.10.

Opposition and Reply in an Appellate Court Writ Proceeding

  • The real party in interest usually prepares and files the return because the respondent in most appellate court writ proceedings is the trial court, which is a neutral party. S.V. v Superior Court (2017) 13 CA5th 1174, 1179 (after appellate court issued alternative writ, real party in interest filed return); Tucker Ellis LLP v Superior Court (2017) 12 CA5th 1233, 1240 (after appellate court issued order to show cause and temporary stay, real party in interest filed formal return). See §23.21.

About the Authors

MITCHELL E. ABBOTT serves as chair of the Appellate Practice Group of Richards, Watson & Gershon in Los Angeles, where his practice focuses on the representation of municipalities and other public entities. He has handled writ matters, civil rights actions, land use cases under the California Environmental Quality Act, public financing cases, taxpayers’ actions, and election contests in both the superior and appellate courts. Mr. Abbott is a Certified Specialist in Appellate Law (State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization), a member of the State Bar’s Appellate Law Advisory Commission, a member of the California Academy of Appellate Lawyers, and a past chair of the State Bar’s Committee on Appellate Courts. He received his A.B. (magna cum laude) in 1972 from the University of California, Davis, and his J.D. in 1975 from the University of Virginia Law School.

TERRY P. ANASTASSIOU is a partner in the San Francisco office of Ropers Majeski Kohn Bentley. His practice emphasizes appeals and writs in state and federal courts in cases involving business, environmental, and professional liability issues. Mr. Anastassiou is a Certified Specialist in Appellate Law (State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization). He has published articles on civil writ practice, contractual arbitration, and the use of special masters in complex litigation. In addition, he has taught seminars on legal writing and pretrial motion practice and taught legal writing at Hastings College of the Law. Mr. Anastassiou received his B.A. in 1983 from George Washington University, and his J.D. in 1991 from Santa Clara University School of Law.

JENNIFER LA FOND CHAVEZ is an associate in the San Diego office of Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps LLP and a member of the firm’s Real Estate Practice Group. Ms. Chavez specializes in land use transactional and litigation matters, including compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Subdivision Map Act, and planning and zoning laws. She received her B.A. (Provost Honors List) in 1998 from the University of California, San Diego, and her J.D. (magna cum laude) in 2002 from Pepperdine University Law School.

JEFFREY CHINE is a partner in the San Diego office of Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps LLP, where he specializes in environmental compliance, land use litigation, and administrative law. Mr. Chine advises landowners, developers, and public agencies on the acquisition, sale, planning, and development of commercial and residential projects. He frequently lectures on land use and development issues to planning and environmental professionals, attorneys, and superior court judges and appellate justices at the California Judicial College. Mr. Chine received his B.A. in 1984 from the University of California, Santa Barbara, and his J.D. in 1987 from the University of California, Los Angeles, School of Law, where he was an editor of the Journal of Environmental Law & Policy.

EFRAT M. COGAN is senior counsel in the Los Angeles office of Buchalter Nemer, where she is a member of the firm’s Litigation and Appellate Practice Groups. Ms. Cogan specializes in complex commercial litigation and contract disputes, real estate and construction, copyright and unfair competition, class actions, professional liability, and constitutional law. She is a Certified Specialist in Appellate Law (State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization) and has been named a Southern California Super Lawyer. She received her B.A. in 1984 from the University of California, Los Angeles, and her J.D. (Order of the Coif) in 1987 from the University of Southern California, where she was articles editor of the law review.

DOUGLAS J. COLLODEL is special counsel in the Los Angeles office of Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold LLP. His practice focuses on civil appellate work in both state and federal courts in cases involving constitutional questions, healthcare matters, business torts, governmental tort claims, and insurance litigation. Mr. Collodel is a Certified Specialist in Appellate Law (State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization) and serves on the Los Angeles County Bar Association’s Appellate Courts and Appellate Election Evaluations Committees. He received his A.B. in 1980 from the University of Notre Dame, and his J.D. in 1983 from the University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law.

ROBERT M. DATO is a shareholder of Buchalter Nemer in Irvine, primarily representing clients in appeals, writ proceedings, and post-trial motions. Mr. Dato is a Certified Specialist in Appellate Law (State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization) and has handled more than 400 appellate matters in state and federal courts across the country. He is a former senior research attorney to Presiding Justice David Sills of the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division Three, and has occasionally served as writ attorney for the court. Mr. Dato is also a past chair of the State Bar’s Committee on Administration of Justice. He received his B.A. in 1980 from San Diego State University, and his J.D. in 1983 from the University of San Diego.

DAVID DE JESUS is Counsel in the Oakland office of Reed Smith LLP, where he is a member of the firm’s Appellate Group. Mr. de Jesus specializes in civil appeals and writs, post-trial motions, and other complex law and motion matters in state and federal courts. Mr. de Jesus received his B.A. (with honors) in 1993 from Loyola Marymount University, and his J.D. in 1998 from Loyola Law School, where he was an articles editor for the Loyola Law Review.

PAUL D. FOGEL is a partner in the San Francisco office of Reed Smith LLP, where he specializes in civil appeals, writs, and post-trial motions. He is a member and past president of the California Academy of Appellate Lawyers, a fellow in the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers, a member of the California Judicial Council’s Appellate Advisory Committee, and a past chair of the State Bar Committee on Appellate Courts. He writes and lectures extensively on appellate law and procedure, and serves as a practitioner-advisor in Appellate Advocacy at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law. Mr. Fogel has appeared as counsel in more than 350 appellate matters in the California Courts of Appeal, the California Supreme Court, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, including more than 60 cases that have resulted in published opinions. He received his A.B. (Phi Beta Kappa) in 1971 from the University of California, Berkeley, and his J.D. in 1976 from the University of California, Los Angeles, School of Law.

MARK FOGELMAN is a partner in the San Francisco office of Reed Smith LLP, where his practice focuses on civil, regulatory, and appellate litigation in the energy, telecommunications, and water industries. A member of the California Academy of Appellate Lawyers, Mr. Fogelman has handled over 150 appeals, resulting in more than 45 published opinions. He also frequently speaks and writes on issues related to regulated industries and appellate practice. Mr. Fogelman received his A.B. from Stanford University, and his J.D. from the University of Chicago Law School.

GINETTA L. GIOVINCO is an associate in the Los Angeles office of Richards, Watson & Gershon, where she represents public entities and private sector clients in litigation matters in both state and federal courts. She received her B.A. (summa cum laude) in 1997 from American University, and her J.D. in 2003 from the University of California, Los Angeles, School of Law.

THE HONORABLE MARGARET M. GRIGNON (RET.) is a partner in the Los Angeles office of Reed Smith LLP, where she is a member of the firm’s Appellate Group. Justice Grignon spent 14 years as a justice on the Second District Court of Appeal, where she authored over 2000 opinions on a wide range of topics. She has published numerous articles on tax, business, and appellate law and is a frequent lecturer at education programs for lawyers and judges. Judge Grignon received her B.A. (cum laude) in 1972 from the University of California, Los Angeles, and her J.D. (summa cum laude) in 1977 from Loyola Law School of Los Angeles.

SUSAN H. HANDELMAN is a partner in the Redwood City office of Ropers Majeski Kohn Bentley, where she specializes in civil appeals and writs in a wide range of practice areas, including intellectual property, legal and medical malpractice, and banking and tax litigation. Ms. Handelman is a Certified Specialist in Appellate Law (State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization) and is the author of articles on federal jurisdiction and insurance coverage issues. She served 4 years on the State Bar’s Appellate Law Advisory Commission, including a term as Chair of the Commission. Ms. Handelman received her B.A. (with honors) from Washington State University, and her J.D. (with honors) from Golden Gate University.

MAUREEN M. HOME is of counsel with the firm Morris Polich & Purdy LLP, specializing in civil appeals and writs. Ms. Home also has worked as a judicial attorney with the Second District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles. She is a member of the Los Angeles County Bar Association Appellate Courts Committee and has been involved in numerous writ cases. Ms. Home received her B.A. in 1981 from the University of Southern California, her M.A. in 1991 from the University of Southern California Annenberg School for Communication, and her J.D. (magna cum laude) in 1995 from Southwestern University School of Law, where she was editor-in-chief of the Southwestern Law Review.

CHRISTINA J. IMRE is a partner in the Los Angeles office of Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold LLP and co-chair of the firm’s Appellate Practice Group. Ms. Imre specializes in civil appeals, writs, and post-trial motions, having handled over 1000 appeals and writs across the country. She writes and lectures extensively on appellate, punitive damages, and insurance-related matters. She has been named a Southern California Super Lawyer by Los Angeles Magazine and was voted One of the 50 Most Powerful Women in Los Angeles Law by the Los Angeles Business Journal. Ms. Imre received her B.A. (summa cum laude) in 1972 from Mount St. Mary’s College, her M.A. in 1974 from the University of Notre Dame, and her J.D. (cum laude) in 1980 from Loyola Law School of Los Angeles, where she was editor-in-chief of the Loyola International & Comparative Law Journal.

DAVID K. ISMAY is an associate at Farella Braun + Martel LLP, where he is a member of the Construction Counseling & Dispute Resolution and the Real Estate & Land Use practice groups. Mr. Ismay focuses on complex construction contracting and litigation as well as infill development. He received his B.S. (with honors) in 1993 from the United States Naval Academy, his M.A. in 1995 from The Queen’s College, Oxford University, where he was a Rhodes Scholar, and his J.D. in 2005 from the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, where he was articles editor of the Ecology Law Quarterly. Mr. Ismay and his co-author Ms. Won would like to acknowledge the contributions of David F. Phillips to chapter 15.

BRIAN D. MABEE is an associate in the Riverside office of Best Best & Krieger LLP, where he is a member of the firm’s Environmental Law and Natural Resources Practice Group. Mr. Mabee specializes in land use and environmental litigation, including cases arising under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). He received his B.A. in 1994 from Grinnell College, and his J.D. in 2004 from the University of California, Davis, School of Law.

JUDY L. McKELVEY is a partner in the Los Angeles firm of Pollak, Vida & Fisher. Her primary practice focuses on administrative mandamus and public entity litigation, particularly in the areas of land use, inverse condemnation, mental health, and employment. Ms. McKelvey makes frequent presentations to public entity groups on governmental liability and mandamus issues. She received her B.A. (with honors) in 1980 from the University of California, Santa Cruz, her M.A. (with honors) in 1982 from the University of California, Berkeley, and her J.D. in 1991 from New York University School of Law.

JAMES C. NIELSEN is a cofounder of the firm Nielsen, Haley & Abbott LLP. He is a Certified Specialist in Appellate Law (State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization) and frequently briefs and argues appeals and writs in both state and federal courts in cases involving commercial, tort, and insurance disputes. Mr. Nielsen’s practice also includes litigating insurance bad faith and coverage claims. He received his B.A. in 1980 from the University of California, Davis, and his J.D. in 1983 from the University of Virginia Law School.

T. PETER PIERCE is a shareholder in Richards, Watson & Gershon in Los Angeles, where he represents clients in cases involving land use and zoning issues, constitutional law, telecommunications law, inverse condemnation issues, and election law. Mr. Pierce is a Certified Specialist in Appellate Law (State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization) and an adjunct professor at the University of Southern California Law School, where he teaches litigation. He is a member of the California State Bar Committee on Appellate Courts and has served as a volunteer in Los Angeles County’s Temporary Judge Program. Mr. Pierce received his A.B. in 1986 from Cornell University, his M.S. in 1987 from Syracuse University, and his J.D. in 1992 from Tulane University.

JUDITH E. POSNER is counsel in the Los Angeles office of Reed Smith LLP, where she focuses on civil appeals, writs, posttrial motions, and trial consultations, and is a member of the firm’s Appellate Practice Group. Ms. Posner also spent more than 5 years as a judicial attorney for the California Court of Appeal. She is a Certified Specialist in Appellate Law (State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization), and in February 2006 was named a California Super Lawyer in appellate law. Ms. Posner received her B.A. (magna cum laude; Phi Beta Kappa) in 1990 from the University of California, Los Angeles, and her J.D. in 1993 from the University of California, Los Angeles, School of Law, where she was managing editor of the Women’s Law Journal.

JEREMY B. ROSEN is a partner in the law firm of Horvitz & Levy LLP, where he specializes in civil appeals. He has briefed numerous cases in the California Supreme Court, including cases involving the scope of the anti-SLAPP statute and the Unruh Act, the enforceability of arbitration clauses, the scope of the Single Publication Act and the right of publicity, the proper standard to evaluate church property disputes, and the application of the primary assumption of risk doctrine. Mr. Rosen has served as an adjunct professor at Pepperdine Law School and the Phillips Graduate Institute. He received his B.A. (magna cum laude; Phi Beta Kappa) in 1993 from Cornell University, and his J.D. (magna cum laude; Order of the Coif) and LL.M. in 1997 from Duke University School of Law, where he served on the editorial board of the Duke Law Journal.

KELLY J. SAVAGE is an associate in the San Francisco office of Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold LLP. Specializing in complex civil and appellate litigation, Ms. Savage counsels and defends a wide variety of clients in the pharmaceutical, manufacturing, transportation, and computer industries. She is also a former state appellate court and federal district court law clerk. She frequently publishes articles on litigation matters. Ms. Savage received her B.A. (cum laude) in 1996 from Ohio State University, and her J.D. (with honors) in 1999 from Ohio Northern University College of Law, where she served as an associate editor for the law review.

MARY-CHRISTINE (M.C.) SUNGAILA is a partner in the appellate law firm of Horvitz & Levy LLP, specializing in product liability and complex tort cases. She is a gender equality expert and has frequently written and lectured on women in the law and on gender equality issues. Ms. Sungaila has been named one of the Top 50 Female Southern California Super Lawyers and one of the Top 75 Women Litigators in California by the Daily Journal. She is chair of the Amicus Briefs Committee of the Women Lawyers Association of Los Angeles. She received her B.A. (with distinction and honors) in 1988 from Stanford University, and her J.D. in 1991 from the University of California, Los Angeles, School of Law.

H. THOMAS WATSON is a partner in the law firm of Horvitz & Levy LLP, where he specializes in appellate law in the insurance and healthcare fields. He is the firm’s liaison to the California Medical Association’s amicus committee and is a frequent author of articles on insurance, healthcare, and punitive damage issues. Mr. Watson is a Certified Specialist in Appellate Law (State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization). He received his B.S. (summa cum laude) in 1982 from the University of Idaho, his M.B.A. in 1988 from Pepperdine University, and his J.D. (Order of the Coif) in 1992 from the University of California, Los Angeles, School of Law.

GRACE K. WON is a partner in the law firm of Farella Braun + Martel LLP, specializing in complex business litigation disputes and securities litigation. She also works with media clients, advising them on issues of newsroom access. Ms. Won has filed numerous appeals and writs in state and federal appellate courts, and the Daily Journal has named her one of the Top 75 Women Litigators in California. She received her B.A. (cum laude) in 1989 from Harvard University, her M.A. in 1991 from University College London, and her J.D. in 1994 from Georgetown University Law Center. Ms. Won and her co-author Mr. Ismay would like to acknowledge the contributions of David F. Phillips to chapter 15.

ROBERT H. WRIGHT is a partner in the law firm of Horvitz & Levy LLP, where his practice focuses on civil appellate work. Mr. Wright has been lead appellate counsel in numerous cases involving a broad range of substantive legal areas, including sovereign immunity, insurance bad faith, products liability, and primary assumption of risk. He is a Certified Specialist in Appellate Law (State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization). Mr. Wright received his B.A. in 1987 from the University of Virginia, and his J.D. (magna cum laude; Order of the Coif) in 1991 from Indiana University School of Law (Bloomington), where he was notes editor for the Indiana Law Journal.

OnLAW System Requirements:
Desktop: Windows XP, 7 or 8, Mac OS 10.8
Mobile: iOS6, iOS7, Android 4.2
Firefox, Chrome, IE and Safari browsers

Note: OnLAW may work with some devices running older versions of these Operating Systems or Windows RT; however, functionality is not guaranteed.

Please see FAQs for more details.
Products specifications
PRACTICE AREA Civil Litigation & Torts
PRACTICE AREA Public Law
PRODUCT GROUP Publication
Products specifications
PRACTICE AREA Civil Litigation & Torts
PRACTICE AREA Public Law
PRODUCT GROUP Publication