“The writ of prohibition arrests the proceedings of any tribunal, corporation, board, or person exercising judicial functions, when such proceedings are without or in excess of the jurisdiction of such tribunal, corporation, board or person.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 1102; County of Sutter v. Super. Ct. (1922) 188 Cal. 292, 295.) It “may be issued by any court to an inferior tribunal or to a corporation, board, or person, in all cases where there is not a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 1103(a).)
A court acts in excess of its jurisdiction, as that term is used in determining whether the writ of prohibition will issue, if it acts in violation of a statute defining its powers. (Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal (1941) 17 Cal.2d. 280, 291.) Acts simply ministerial in their nature, and in no sense judicial, cannot be reached by prohibition. (Taylor v. Board of Election Commrs. (1880) 54 Cal. 404, 406.)
A writ of prohibition is a proper remedy to restrain enforcement of a law or ordinance invalid on its face. (Chambers v. Municipal Court (1977) 65 Cal.App.3d 904, 907.) It is only where the inferior tribunal is about to do some act unauthorized by law that the writ will lie; it is a preventive, rather than a corrective, remedy, and issues only to restrain the commission of a future act and not to undo an act already performed. (Hevren v. Reed (1899) 126 Cal. 219, 222; Hull v. Super. Ct. (1883) 63 Cal. 179; Havemeyer v. Super. Ct. (1890) 84 Cal. 327, 394.)
If the court has jurisdiction over both the crime and the person of the defendant, prohibition is not available to restrain or correct mere errors in procedure, such as rulings upon the admissibility of evidence, since such errors can be corrected on appeal. (Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal (1941) 17 Cal.2d 280, 287.) “If the lower court has power to make a correct determination of a particular issue, it clearly has power to make an incorrect decision, subject only to appellate review and not to restraint by prohibition. Hence, in examining the authorities, we must conclude that in those situations in which a writ of prohibition was issued, the particular action restrained was one beyond the jurisdiction of the court to take.” (Id. at 286.)
“It is the universal rule that mere error, irregularity, or mistake in the proceedings of a court having jurisdiction does not justify a resort to the extraordinary remedy of prohibition, and that a writ of prohibition never issues to restrain a lower tribunal from committing mere error in deciding a question properly before it; or, as it has sometimes been said, the writ of prohibition cannot be converted into, or made to serve the purpose of, an appeal, writ of error, or writ of review to undo what already has been done. This is true both because there has been no usurpation or abuse of power and because there exist other adequate remedies. Thus, when jurisdiction is clear, an erroneous decision in ruling on the sufficiency of the petition or complaint, or on a motion to dismiss, or on matters of defense, or in rendering judgment, is not ground for a writ of prohibition.” (42 Am.Jur. 165, 166; Lord v. Super. Ct. (1946) 27 Cal. 2d 855; Howard v. Super. Ct. (1944) 25 Cal. 2d 784.)
As to count one, the Court did not issue a writ of mandate or writ of prohibition. As to count two, the Court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against all Defendants: the RHCA, the Board, and the Members of the Board. As to count three, the Court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against all Defendants: the RHCA, the Board, and the Members of the Board. As to count four, the Court did not quiet title in Plaintiff’s favor.
Jan 07, 2021
Real Property
Quiet Title
Los Angeles County, CA
Nature of Proceedings: Ex Parte Application for Alternative Writ of Prohibition and Immediate Stay - Tentative Ruling * * If oral argument is requested, then it will be conducted remotely through the Zoom Application. Counsel are encouraged to use headsets during Zoom appearances. Experience has shown that the use of headsets improves sound quality.
Oct 30, 2020
Sacramento County, CA
Local Rule 2.3(a)(1)(A) contains mandatory filing rules which have no application to Plaintiff’s complaint, as the case does not fall within any of the enumerated case types: personal injury, asbestos, class action, probate, Labor Code section 98.2, writ of prohibition or mandate, emancipation, or adoption.
Oct 08, 2020
Contract
Breach
Los Angeles County, CA
Local Rule 2.3(a)(1)(A) contains mandatory filing rules which have no application to Plaintiff’s complaint, as the case does not fall within any of the enumerated case types: personal injury, asbestos, class action, probate, Labor Code section 98.2, writ of prohibition or mandate, emancipation, or adoption.
Oct 08, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
The FAP states Petitioners seek a writ of mandate to compel Respondent to perform all of its City General Plan and Municipal Code mandated duties and obligations as imposed by State law (the City General Plan and the City Municipal Code) and specifically to compel the City to assure that all city ordinances, including “L”, are consistent with State law, the City General Plan, and the City Municipal Code; Petitioners also seek a writ of prohibition, specifically to halt the proceedings currently underway to implement
Sep 16, 2020
Riverside County, CA
On June 30, 2020, Gurnick filed its Verified Petition and Complaint for Writ of Mandate, Writ of Prohibition, and Declaratory Relief (Petition). Gurnick's Petition seeks a writ of mandate pursuant tQ Code of Civil Procedure section 1085, and a writ of prohibition pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 1102 and 1103, prohibiting the Board from attempting to "rescind" Gurnick's ongoing admissions at one of its vocational schools.
Sep 11, 2020
Sacramento County, CA
On June 30, 2020, Gurnick filed its Verified Petition and Complaint for Writ of Mandate, Writ of Prohibition, and Declaratory Relief (Petition). Gurnick's Petition seeks a writ of mandate pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1085, and a writ of prohibition pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 1102 and 1103, prohibiting the Board from attempting to "rescind" Gurnick's ongoing admissions at one of its vocational schools.
Sep 11, 2020
Sacramento County, CA
They are thus not ‘judicial functions’ that may be restrained by a writ of prohibition.” (Internal cites omitted.) Respondents argue Petitioner does not allege any acts “judicial in nature” that could be restrained by a writ of prohibition.
Sep 11, 2020
Sacramento County, CA
They are thus not 'judicial functions' that may be restrained by a writ of prohibition." (Intemal cites omitted.) Respondents argue Petitioner does not allege any acts "judicial in nature" that could be restrained by a writ of prohibition. The Court agrees, particularly where, as here. Petitioner has not filed an opposition.' The demurrer is thus granted without leave to amend.
Sep 11, 2020
Sacramento County, CA
Local Rule 2.3(a)(1)(A) contains mandatory filing rules which have no application to Plaintiff’s complaint, as the case does not fall within any of the enumerated case types: personal injury, asbestos, class action, probate, Labor Code section 98.2, writ of prohibition or mandate, emancipation, or adoption.
Aug 27, 2020
Collections
Promisory Note
Los Angeles County, CA
Local Rule 2.3(a)(1)(A) contains mandatory filing rules which have no application to Plaintiff’s complaint, as the case does not fall within any of the enumerated case types: personal injury, asbestos, class action, probate, Labor Code section 98.2, writ of prohibition or mandate, emancipation, or adoption. If none of the mandatory provisions apply, a civil case may always be filed in the Central District.
Jul 02, 2020
Real Property
Landlord Tenant
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff petitioned for a writ of prohibition and/or mandate. The Court of Appeal denied the petition.
Jan 30, 2020
Employment
Wrongful Term
San Diego County, CA
Plaintiff petitioned for a writ of prohibition and/or mandate. The Court of Appeal denied the petition.
Jan 30, 2020
Employment
Wrongful Term
San Diego County, CA
Disposition The writ of prohibition is granted, The OSC re: contempt is denied. In the event that this tentative ruling becomes the court's order, then pursuant to Cal. Rule of Court 3.1312, counsel for the Petitioners shall lodge for the court's signature a proposed judgment that incorporates this ruling as an exhibit.
Jan 24, 2020
Sacramento County, CA
On appeal, Twin Lock sought a writ of prohibition to prevent the imposition of sanctions for its officers’ failure to appear for the depositions. The Supreme Court stated: “The disposition of this proceeding depends upon the applicability of section 1989 of the Code of Civil Procedure … .” (Twin Lock, supra, 52 Cal.2d at p. 758.)
Jan 09, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Los Angeles County, CA
On appeal, Twin Lock sought a writ of prohibition to prevent the imposition of sanctions for its officers' failure to appear for the depositions. The Supreme Court stated: “The disposition of this proceeding depends upon the applicability of section 1989 of the Code of Civil Procedure … .” (Twin Lock, supra, 52 Cal.2d at p. 758.)
Dec 12, 2019
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Los Angeles County, CA
Superior Court (1937) 23 Cal.App.2d 173, 72 P.2d 774.) ¶ Appellate review of the issue may be sought by petition for writ of prohibition. (Lawyers Title Ins. Corp. v. Superior Court, supra, 151 Cal.App.3d 455, 199 Cal.Rptr. 1; Padula v. Superior Court, supra, 235 Cal.App.2d 567, 45 Cal.Rptr. 500; Figgs v. Superior Court, supra, 204 Cal.App.2d 231, 22 Cal.Rptr. 199; Robinson v. Superior Court, supra, 203 Cal.App.2d 263, 21 Cal.Rptr. 475; Cade v.
Dec 06, 2019
El Dorado County, CA
After the trial court issued an order compelling the deposition of the plaintiff’s spouse, the plaintiff sought a writ of prohibition to prevent his spouse from testifying in the action.
Dec 04, 2019
Santa Barbara County, CA
Pursuant to LASC Local Rule 2.3(a)(1)(A), “[e]very proceeding seeking a writ of prohibition or mandate (except as provided in subsection (B) below) must be filed in the Central District.” Petitioner contends the Respondent functions wholly in the Southwest District, because the Metropolitan State Hospital is located in Norwalk. (Opp. at 4-5.) However, as noted Respondent in Reply, the Respondent is a statewide agency, not a single hospital.
Aug 22, 2019
Administrative
Writ
Los Angeles County, CA
In Brown, the court of appeal issued a writ of prohibition restraining the trial court from compelling a personal injury plaintiff to produce her W-2 forms. The court recognized that the privilege extended to documents used in the preparation of tax forms, and rejected the argument made here, that the privilege should not apply because the documents were necessary to evaluate plaintiff’s claim for loss of earnings.
Jul 26, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Local Rule 2.3(a)(1)(A) sets forth mandatory filing rules which have no application to Plaintiffs’ complaint, as the case does not fall within any of the enumerated case types: personal injury, asbestos, class action, probate, Labor Code section 98.2, writ of prohibition or mandate, emancipation, or adoption. If none of the mandatory provisions apply, a civil case may always be filed in the Central District.
Jul 11, 2019
Real Property
other
Los Angeles County, CA
On September 27, 2016, Walker filed a motion requesting the OAH to stay the administrative hearing pending appeal of the trial court’s denial of the writ of prohibition. See AR 498. The CBA opposed the request and the OAH denied the request on the grounds that Walker did not establish good cause for continuance of the hearing and that there is no right to a stay based upon an appeal of an order dismissing a writ petition. AR 498-99.
Jul 09, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Local Rule 2.3(a)(1)(A) contains mandatory filing rules which have no application to Plaintiffs’ complaint, as the case does not fall within any of the enumerated case types: personal injury, asbestos, class action, probate, Labor Code section 98.2, writ of prohibition or mandate, emancipation, or adoption. If none of the mandatory provisions apply, a civil case may always be filed in the Central District.
Jun 27, 2019
Other
Intellectual Property
Los Angeles County, CA
The 2018 Action asserts causes of action for (1) declaratory relief, (2) injunctive relief, (3) “per se, private and public nuisance,” (4) accounting, (5) writ of mandate under Code of Civil Procedure section 1085, (6) writ of prohibition under Sections 1102-1103, and (7) breach of 2000 agreement. On December 13, 2018, the Court denied the Rossi Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction and writ of mandate and/or writ of prohibition.
Jun 20, 2019
San Luis Obispo County, CA
Plaintiff petitioned for a writ of prohibition and/or mandate. The Court of Appeal denied the petition.
Jun 12, 2019
Personal Injury/ Tort
Auto
San Diego County, CA
Please wait a moment while we load this page.