Writ of mandate (California)

Last updated

The writ of mandate is a type of extraordinary writ in the U.S. state of California. [1] [2] In California, certain writs are used by the superior courts, courts of appeal and the Supreme Court to command lower bodies, including both courts and administrative agencies, to do or not to do certain things. A writ of mandate may be granted by a court as an order to an inferior tribunal, corporation, board or person, both public and private. [3] Unlike the federal court system, where interlocutory appeals may be taken on a permissive basis and mandamus are usually used to contest recusal decisions, the writ of mandate in California is not restricted to purely ministerial tasks, but can be used to correct any legal error by the trial court. Nonetheless, ordinary writ relief in the Court of Appeal is rarely granted.

Contents

Writs are generally divided into two categories: the most common form of writ petition is ordinary mandate, which is a highly informal process mostly governed by advisory rules of court rather than by strict rules or statutes. A separate and much more formalized procedure called administrative mandate is used to review certain decisions by administrative agencies after adjudicatory hearings, and are distinguished from ordinary writ proceedings by the addition of a panoply of statutory requirements. [4] Despite the name, however, ordinary mandate encompasses a wider variety of administrative appeals than administrative mandate does, and an administrative mandate petition may allege ordinary mandate as another cause of action. [5] Many common writ petitions directed towards administrative bodies, such as actions to compel the disclosure of public records, [6] do not share the requirements of administrative mandate as there is no 'adjudicatory hearing'.

Appellate

Only a few specific orders besides final judgments are subject to appeal in California. [7] As such, the only way for most interlocutory decisions to be reviewed before trial is through ordinary mandate. [8] Most such writ petitions are common-law writ petitions, which are not specifically set out by statute, and do not have a specific statute of limitation. However, courts have generally inferred a prudential, but not jurisdictional, 60-day deadline, by analogy with the amount of time usually allowed for appeals. [9]

Procedure

A litigant begins the process by filing a petition, usually styled as a petition for writ of mandate, prohibition or other extraordinary relief, against the trial court as respondent, naming the other party as the real party in interest. [10] Immediately upon receiving the writ petition, the court may deny the petition, stay the trial court proceedings, issue an alternative writ or an order to show cause, or notify the parties that it intends to issue a peremptory writ in the first instance. [11]

The vast majority of appellate writs are summarily denied without explanation, as, with very few exceptions, they are not a 'cause' which requires an appellate court to make a 'decision in writing with reasons stated', as required by the California Constitution. [12] [13]

An alternative writ and order to show cause are identical in effect, but semantically slightly different; an alternative writ directs the trial court either to comply with its terms or show cause why it should not be ordered to do so, while an order to show cause only directs the trial court to show cause why the relief should not be granted. This is the most common way for writ petitions to be granted. [14]

In extraordinary cases, the court may issue a Palma notice, advising the real party in interest that the court is considering granting a peremptory writ in the first instance, i.e. granting the requested relief immediately. [15] This is intended to give the party the opportunity to raise uncertainty in the law or facts and persuade the court to issue an alternative writ instead. [16]

Statutory writs

Certain writs are prescribed by statute. Each statute which specifically allows a writ to be filed comes with a specific statute of limitations, usually 20 days or less. However, statutory writs are still discretionary, with very few exceptions. [17]

In civil cases

In criminal cases

As appeals from the outcome of writ petitions in the superior court

Mandatory review

Although writ review is almost always discretionary, there are situations where a writ proceeding is the only way for a final judgment or order to be reviewed on appeal because the decision is not appealable. In those cases, the writ is no longer discretionary and the Court of Appeal must issue a full decision on the issue. [31] For example, a writ petition is the only way for a denial of a Public Records Act lawsuit to be appealed; [32] as such, the petition must be considered in its whole.

Trial court

Writ petitions can also be filed with a superior court in order to compel an administrative agency or other entity, public or private, to perform a duty required by law. Although these petitions can be filed with the court of appeal or Supreme Court in the first instance, they are usually summarily denied without prejudice. [33]

Administrative mandate

Historically, California administrative agency decisions were reviewed by the courts on writs of certiorari . In 1936, the Supreme Court of California held that because the state constitution reserves judicial decisionmaking to the judicial branch, it lacked jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari to review the decision of a state board unless that board had been expressly authorized by the state constitution to exercise judicial power. The court applied similar reasoning to the writ of prohibition the next year. To avoid the obvious implication that nearly all California government agency decisions were now entirely immune from judicial review, the court held in 1939 that the writ of mandate could be used instead for that purpose. [34] The high court struggled over the next few years, without success, to formulate a coherent standard of review for this new kind of appellate review. [34] Regardless, the state legislature ratified and endorsed the new concept of administrative mandate in 1945 by enacting Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5. [34]

Administrative mandate lies when the filing party wishes to appeal "any final administrative order or decision made as the result of a proceeding in which by law a hearing is required to be given, evidence is required to be taken, and discretion in the determination of facts is vested in the inferior tribunal". [35] Proceedings subject to review by administrative mandate usually occur before state government agencies, such as the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, the State Hearings Division of the Department of Social Services and the various divisions of the Department of Industrial Relations. Constitutional agencies are subject to both certiorari and administrative mandate; in those cases, a court's review of their factual findings is "limited to a determination whether those findings are supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record" in deference to their limited judicial powers. [36] Proceedings before local government agencies are also reviewable through administrative mandate.

In general, this type of proceeding is initiated by the timely filing of a petition for administrative mandate in a superior court (that is, a trial court). The petitioner must arrange for the lodging of the administrative record, and then, depending upon local rules, get the petition onto the court's motion calendar for a hearing and ruling on its merits by way of an ex parte application for an order to show cause or a motion for writ of administrative mandate. Further appellate relief is pursued on direct appeal before the relevant Court of Appeal (rather than by another writ petition).

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Appellate procedure in the United States</span> National rules of court appeals

United States appellate procedure involves the rules and regulations for filing appeals in state courts and federal courts. The nature of an appeal can vary greatly depending on the type of case and the rules of the court in the jurisdiction where the case was prosecuted. There are many types of standard of review for appeals, such as de novo and abuse of discretion. However, most appeals begin when a party files a petition for review to a higher court for the purpose of overturning the lower court's decision.

The government of California is the governmental structure of the U.S. state of California as established by the California Constitution. California uses the separation of powers system to structure its government. It is composed of three branches: the executive, consisting of the governor of California and the other constitutionally elected and appointed officers and offices; the legislative, consisting of the California State Legislature, which includes the Assembly and the Senate; and the judicial, consisting of the Supreme Court of California and lower courts. There is also local government, consisting of counties, cities, special districts, and school districts, as well as government entities and offices that operate independently on a constitutional, statutory, or common law basis. The state also allows direct participation of the electorate by initiative, referendum, recall and ratification.

Mandamus is a judicial remedy in the form of an order from a court to any government, subordinate court, corporation, or public authority, to do some specific act which that body is obliged under law to do, and which is in the nature of public duty, and in certain cases one of a statutory duty. It cannot be issued to compel an authority to do something against statutory provision. For example, it cannot be used to force a lower court to take a specific action on applications that have been made, but if the court refuses to rule one way or the other then a mandamus can be used to order the court to rule on the applications.

In law, certiorari is a court process to seek judicial review of a decision of a lower court or government agency. Certiorari comes from the name of an English prerogative writ, issued by a superior court to direct that the record of the lower court be sent to the superior court for review. The term is Latin for "to be made more certain", and comes from the opening line of such writs, which traditionally began with the Latin words "Certiorari volumus...".

In common law systems, a superior court is a court of general jurisdiction over civil and criminal legal cases. A superior court is "superior" in relation to a court with limited jurisdiction, which is restricted to civil cases involving monetary amounts with a specific limit, or criminal cases involving offenses of a less serious nature. A superior court may hear appeals from lower courts. For courts of general jurisdiction in civil law system, see ordinary court.

A writ of coram nobis is a legal order allowing a court to correct its original judgment upon discovery of a fundamental error that did not appear in the records of the original judgment's proceedings and that would have prevented the judgment from being pronounced. The term coram nobis is Latin for "before us" and the meaning of its full form, quae coram nobis resident, is "which [things] remain in our presence". The writ of coram nobis originated in the courts of common law in the English legal system during the sixteenth century.

<i>Apple v. Does</i> California Courts of Appeal case

Apple v. Does was a high-profile legal proceeding in United States of America notable for bringing into question the breadth of the shield law protecting journalists from being forced to reveal their sources, and whether that law applied to online news journalists writing about corporate trade secrets. The case was also notable for the large collection of amici curiae who joined in the matter.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">California Courts of Appeal</span> Intermediate appellate courts of California

The California Courts of Appeal are the state intermediate appellate courts in the U.S. state of California. The state is geographically divided along county lines into six appellate districts. The Courts of Appeal form the largest state-level intermediate appellate court system in the United States, with 106 justices.

An interlocutory appeal, in the law of civil procedure in the United States, occurs when a ruling by a trial court is appealed while other aspects of the case are still proceeding. Interlocutory appeals are allowed only under specific circumstances, which are laid down by the federal and the separate state courts.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1996 California Proposition 218</span> Adopted initiative constitutional amendment

Proposition 218 is an adopted initiative constitutional amendment which revolutionized local and regional government finance and taxation in California. Named the "Right to Vote on Taxes Act," it was sponsored by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association as a constitutional follow-up to the landmark property tax reduction initiative constitutional amendment, Proposition 13, approved in June 1978. Proposition 218 was approved and adopted by California voters during the November 5, 1996, statewide general election.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">California superior courts</span> State trial courts with general jurisdiction

Superior courts in California are the state trial courts with general jurisdiction to hear and decide any civil or criminal action which is not specially designated to be heard in some other court or before a governmental agency. As mandated by the California Constitution, there is a superior court in each of the 58 counties in California. The superior courts also have appellate divisions which hear appeals from decisions in cases previously heard by inferior courts.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Law of California</span> Overview of the law of the U.S. state of California

The law of California consists of several levels, including constitutional, statutory, and regulatory law, as well as case law. The California Codes form the general statutory law, and most state agency regulations are available in the California Code of Regulations.

A Pitchess motion is a request made by the defense in a California criminal case, such as a DUI case or a resisting arrest case, to access a law enforcement officer's personnel information when the defendant alleges in an affidavit that the officer used excessive force or lied about the events surrounding the defendant's arrest. The information provided will include prior incidents of use of force, allegations of excessive force, citizen complaints, and information gathered during the officer's pre-employment background investigation. The motion's name comes from the case Pitchess v. Superior Court.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Washington Court of Appeals</span> Intermediate appellate court of Washington State

The Washington Court of Appeals is the intermediate level appellate court for the state of Washington. The court is divided into three divisions. Division I is based in Seattle, Division II is based in Tacoma, and Division III is based in Spokane.

The government of Washington State is the governmental structure of the State of Washington, United States, as established by the Constitution of the State of Washington. The executive is composed of the Governor, several other statewide elected officials and the Governor's cabinet. The Washington State Legislature consists of the House of Representatives and State Senate. The judiciary is composed of the Washington Supreme Court and lower courts. There is also local government, consisting of counties, municipalities and special districts.

The Judiciary of California or the Judicial Branch of California is defined under the California Constitution as holding the judicial power of the state of California which is vested in the Supreme Court, the Courts of Appeal and the Superior Courts. The judiciary has a hierarchical structure with the California Supreme Court at the top, California Courts of Appeal as the primary appellate courts, and the California Superior Courts as the primary trial courts.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board</span>

The California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board is a quasi-judicial administrative court in the U.S. state of California which hears appeals from determinations on unemployment insurance claims and taxes by the Employment Development Department. It is governed by a five-member Board, of which three are appointed by the Governor, one is appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly and one by the Senate President pro tempore. The Board was initially formed in 1943.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Petition for review</span>

In some jurisdictions, a petition for review is a formal request for an appellate tribunal to review the decision of a lower court or administrative body. If a jurisdiction utilizes petitions for review, then parties seeking appellate review of their case may submit a formal petition for review to an appropriate court. In United States federal courts, the term "petition for review" is also used to describe petitions that seek review of federal agency actions.

United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502 (1954), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court which provides the writ of coram nobis as the proper application to request federal post-conviction judicial review for those who have completed the conviction's incarceration in order to challenge the validity of a federal criminal conviction.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Special motion to strike</span> Legal motion intended to stop SLAPP lawsuits

The special motion to strike is a motion authorized by the California Code of Civil Procedure intended to stop strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs). They were created in 1992 with the purpose of encouraging participation in matters of public significance. The motion allows a litigant to strike a complaint when it arises from conduct in furtherance of the moving party's rights to petition or free speech in connection with a public issue. If the moving party prevails, they are entitled to attorney's fees by right. The motion is codified in section 425.16 of the Code. More than 300 published court opinions have interpreted and applied California's anti-SLAPP law. Because the right to file a special motion to strike is substantive immunity to suit, rather than a merely procedural right, federal courts apply the law to state law claims they hear under diversity jurisdiction.

References

  1. Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute, Mandamus
  2. Rothschild, Richard. "Writ of Mandate Outline" (PDF). Legal Aid Association of California. Retrieved May 10, 2021.
  3. Cal. Code of Civil Procedure § 1085
  4. Cal. Code of Civil Procedure § 1094.5
  5. Conlan v. Bonta, 102Cal.App.4th745 , 751(2002).
  6. Cal. Government Code § 6259 subd. (a)
  7. Cal. Code of Civil Procedure § 904.1 & § 1294
  8. Form APP-150-INFO, California Judicial Council, pg. 5
  9. Volkswagen of America, Inc. v. Superior Court (Adams), 94Cal.App.4th695 , 701(2001).
  10. Form APP-150-INFO, California Judicial Council, pg. 2
  11. Form APP-150-INFO, California Judicial Council, pg. 8
  12. Cal. Const. art. VI § 14
  13. Omaha Indemnity Co. v. Superior Court (Greinke), 209Cal. App. 3d1266 , 1271(1989)("Approximately 90 percent of petitions seeking extraordinary relief are denied.").
  14. Form APP-150-INFO, California Judicial Council, pg. 9
  15. Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc.,36Cal.3d171, 180(1989).
  16. Kernes v. Superior Court (People), 77Cal. App. 4th525 , 530(2000).
  17. Peg C. Toledo; C. Athena Roussos. "Statutory Writs" (PDF). The Daily Recorder.
  18. Cal. Code of Civil Procedure § 170.3 subd. (d)
  19. Cal. Code of Civil Procedure § 400
  20. Cal. Code of Civil Procedure § 405.39
  21. Cal. Code of Civil Procedure § 418.10 subd. (c)
  22. Cal. Code of Civil Procedure § 437c subd. (m)(1)
  23. Cal. Code of Civil Procedure § 877.6 subd. (e)
  24. Cal. Code of Civil Procedure § 425.18 subd. (g)
  25. Cal. Code of Civil Procedure § 170.3 subd. (d)
  26. Cal. Penal Code § 999a
  27. Cal. Penal Code § 1538.5
  28. Cal. Code of Civil Procedure § 904.3
  29. Cal. Government Code § 6259 subd. (c)
  30. Cal. Business & Professions Code § 2337
  31. Powers v. City of Richmond, 10Cal. 4th85 , 133(1995)("[W]hen writ review is the exclusive means of appellate review of a final order or judgment, an appellate court may not deny an apparently meritorious writ petition, timely presented in a formally and procedurally sufficient manner, merely because... the petition presents no important issue of law or because the court considers the case less worthy of its attention than other matters.").
  32. Cal. Government Code § 6259 subd. (c)
  33. Maruri, Katya. "California Court Declines to Take Up Case Against Prop 22". February 9, 2021. Government Technology. Retrieved May 10, 2021.
  34. 1 2 3 Walker, Sam (Spring 1990). "Judicially Created Uncertainty: The Past, Present, and Future of the California Writ of Administrative Mandamus" (PDF). UC Davis Law Review. 24 (3): 783–839. Retrieved 3 April 2022.
  35. Cal. Code of Civil Procedure § 1094.5 subd. (a)
  36. Strumsky v. San Diego County Employees Retirement Assn., 11Cal. 3d28 , 35.