Opinion ID: 2613244
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whether the Court of Appeal properly processed the writ application under the expedited procedure authorized by Code of Civil Procedure section 1088

Text: (1) In Palma, supra, 36 Cal.3d 171, we outlined the procedure under which a court may issue a peremptory writ in the first instance (Code Civ. Proc., § 1088) in lieu of the usual alternative writ procedure ( id., § 1087). We noted that Code of Civil Procedure section 1088 requires, at a minimum, that a peremptory writ of mandate or prohibition not issue in the first instance unless the parties adversely affected by the writ have received notice, from the petitioner or from the court, that the issuance of such a writ in the first instance is being sought or considered. In addition, an appellate court, absent exceptional circumstances, should not issue a peremptory writ in the first instance without having received, or solicited, opposition from the party or parties adversely affected. (36 Cal.3d at p. 180.) We also made clear that a peremptory writ in the first instance should not issue unless it appears that the petition and opposing papers on file adequately address the issues raised by the petition, that no factual dispute exists, and that the additional briefing that would follow issuance of an alternative writ is unnecessary to disposition of the petition. ( Id., at p. 178.) Recently, in Ng v. Superior Court (1992) 4 Cal.4th 29 [13 Cal. Rptr.2d 856, 840 P.2d 961], we cautioned that the accelerated procedure authorized in Code of Civil Procedure section 1088, and described in Palma, supra, 36 Cal.3d 171, is the exception; it should not become routine. Generally, that procedure should be adopted only when petitioner's entitlement to relief is so obvious that no purpose could reasonably be served by plenary consideration of the issue  for example, when such entitlement is conceded or when there has been clear error under well-settled principles of law and undisputed facts  or where there is an unusual urgency requiring acceleration of the normal process. If there is no compelling temporal urgency, and if the law and facts mandating the relief sought are not entirely clear, the normal writ procedure, including issuance of an alternative writ (see Palma, supra, at pp. 177-178), should be followed. ( Ng, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 35.) Nothing in the record suggests any unusual urgency justifying expedited resolution of petitioners' writ application. And, as explained below ( post, pp. 1224-1228), the Court of Appeal could not legitimately have concluded that petitioners' entitlement to relief [was] so obvious that no purpose could reasonably be served by plenary consideration of the issue, or that the matter involved conceded or ... clear error under well-settled principles of law.... ( Ng v. Superior Court, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 35.) In fact, we conclude petitioners are not entitled to relief, and that the Court of Appeal erred by entertaining petitioners' writ application under Code of Civil Procedure section 1088. [3]