Page 1
C.A. Issues Opinion With No Reasons Stated
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Div. Two of the First District Court of Appeal has issued an unpublished opinion which raises the question of whether the justices have adhered to the state constitutional requirement of setting forth the reasons for its determination.
In Center Street Development Co. v. Superior Court, A160894, filed Wednesday, Acting Presiding Justice James Richman and Justices Therese M. Stewart and Douglas P. Miller merely stated that the trial court “erred,” and declared that a peremptory writ would be issued in the first instance.
Art. VI, §14 of the state Constitution provides:
“Decisions of the Supreme Court and courts of appeal that determine causes shall be in writing with reasons stated.”
Supreme Court Decision
The California Supreme Court held in its 1999 decision in Lewis v. Superior Court that a court of appeal, in granting a peremptory writ in the first instance, “might choose to write a decision that is not as exhaustive as an opinion resolving the same issues on appeal might have been.” But, it noted, that “a decision directing the issuance of a peremptory writ in the first instance is a ‘judgment’ ” within the meaning of provisions of Art. VI, “and the court must set forth the grounds for such a decision.”
Citing precedent, then-Chief Justice Ronald George said in his majority opinion that “an opinion sufficiently states ‘reasons’ if it sets forth the ‘grounds’ or ‘principles’ upon which the justices concur in the judgment.”
George declared that a three-paragraph Court of Appeal opinion sufficed in a case in which a horseback rider, who was injured in a fall, sued the owner of the premises and summary judgment was granted to the defendant based on recreational use immunity. The chief justice explained:
“The opinion describes the general nature of the recreational use immunity, concludes the record establishes that the immunity applies because Green’s purpose in riding his horse was for recreation, and rejects the argument that the recreational nature of the ride ended when Green entered Lewis’s property. These are adequate statements of the principal reasons for the Court of Appeal’s decision.”
First District Opinion
The First District justices said in Wednesday’s “By the Court” opinion (with citations removed):
“In accordance with our prior notification to the parties that we might do so, we will direct issuance of a peremptory writ in the first instance….Petitioner’s right to relief is obvious, and no useful purpose would be served by issuance of an alternative writ, further briefing, and oral argument….
“In its August 20, 2020 order, respondent court erred by granting summary adjudication on real party in interest’s second (quiet title) and third (declaratory relief) causes of action. Therefore, let a peremptory writ of mandate issue directing respondent superior court to set aside and vacate the August 20, 2020 order granting real party in interest’s motion for summary adjudication and to enter a new order denying the motion.
“In the interests of justice and to prevent further delays, this decision shall be final as to this court immediately….The remittitur will issue immediately upon the finality of this opinion as to this court, should the parties so stipulate…..”
Mendocino Superior Court Judge Jeanine Nadel presided over the proceedings.
Copyright 2021, Metropolitan News Company