Brown Winfield & Canzoneri, Inc. v. Sup. Ct., No. S156598

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

Counsel
For 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