Supreme Court of California

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.

Appellate Information

• Decided 02/01/2010
• Published 02/01/2010

Judges

• GEORGE, C.J.

Court

• Supreme Court of California

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 Petitioner., Cochran, Davis & Associates, Joan E. Cochran; Thompson & Alessio, Kris P. Thompson and Jeffrey K. Miyamoto, for Real Party in Interest., Jay-Allen Eisen; Dennis A. Fischer; Joseph R. Grodin; Steven L. Mayer; Robin Meadow; Robert A. Olson; Jonathan B. Steiner; Douglas R. Young; Eisenberg and Hancock and Jon B. Eisenberg, for California Academy of Appellate Lawyers as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Real Party in Interest.


• For Appellees:
  
• No appearance for Respondent.