In writ proceedings arising from parties’ insurance coverage dispute, a court of appeals’ dismissal of the writ proceeding is affirmed as the court of appeal did not err in dismissing its August 28, 2007 order comprising the “suggestive” Palma notice at issue, and subsequent settlement of the litigation underlying the petition rendered moot the relief sought in that petition. It is not improper for an appellate court to issue a “suggestive” Palma notice, and further, it may do so without first having received or solicited opposition from the real party in interest. However, if a trial court decides on its own motion to revisit its interim ruling in response to a suggestive Palma notice – an action within its inherent authority – then it must inform the parties of its intent to do so, and provide them with an opportunity to be heard.
Read Brown Winfield & Canzoneri, Inc. v. Sup. Ct., No. S156598 [HTML]
Read Brown Winfield & Canzoneri, Inc. v. Sup. Ct., No. S156598 [PDF]
Filed February 1, 2010
Judges
Opinion by Judge George
CounselFor Appellant: Bingham McCutchen, Bruce A. Friedman, Kenneth S. Meyers, Gina M. Simas; Shernoff Bidart Darras & Echeverria, Michael J. Bidart, Ricardo Echeverria; The Ehrlich Law Firm and Jeffrey Isaac Ehrlich
For Appellee: Cochran, Davis & Associates, Joan E. Cochran; Thompson & Alessio, Kris P. Thompson and Jeffrey K. Miyamoto
You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help
Civil Rights
Block on Trump’s Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
Criminal
Judges Can Release Secret Grand Jury Records
Politicians Can’t Block Voters on Facebook, Court Rules
