On June 18, 2019 a
Order
was filed
involving a dispute between
American Civil Liberties Union Of Northern,
Asian Americans Advancing Justice Asian Law Caucus,
California,
Council On American-Islamic Relations,
Council On Americanislamic Relations,
and
City And County Of San Fracnisco,
Scott, William,
United States Of America,
for WRITS OF MANDATE OR PROH., CERTI., ETC./ADMIN. AGEN
in the District Court of San Francisco County.
Preview
Court of Appeal, First Appellate District
Charles D. Johnson, Clerk/Executive Officer
Electronically FILED on 10/30/2019 by G. King, Deputy Clerk
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
FitikD
ASIAN AMERICANS ADVANCING San Francisco County Superior Court
TSTICE—ASIAN LAW CAUCUS, et OCT $1 2019
, iti CLEBIC COURT
Petitioners, A158317 oe
v. . : . Deputy Clerk
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN (San Francisco County
FRANCISCO COUNTY, - Super. Ct. No. CPF-19-516706)
Respondent;
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO, et al.,
Real Parties in Interest.
THE COURT:*
The petition for writ of mandate is denied without prejudice.
After the petition was filed, a series of events occurred which the trial court has
not yet had the opportunity to address.
On September 30, 2019, a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors
asked the Federal Bureau of Investigation for a copy of the white paper at issue.
On October 3, 2019, an Assistant United States Attorney sent purported copies of
the white paper via electronic mail to that supervisor and to counsel for petitioners.
Petitioners contend the document they received is not an “exact copy” of the
document in the possession of the real parties in interest (Govt. Code, § 6253, subd. (b)),
because it lacks certain header text described in the opposition papers originally filed in
the trial court.
* Siggins, P.J., Petrou, J., & Goode, J. (Retired Judge of the Contra Costa County
Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.)These developments raise a variety of issues never presented to or addressed by
the trial court, such as factual issues of authority and authenticity, and legal issues of
waiver and mootness. There may be other related developments and issues that arose
after the trial court’s initial ruling. That court should be afforded the opportunity to
consider and develop arecord regarding new developments in the first instance.
This denial is without prejudice to petitioners’ renewal of their motion for
peremptory’ writ.in the trial court, to permit that court to develop an augmented record
and issue a further ruling. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008, subd. (b).) This denial is also
without prejudice to either side filing a writ petition with this court to seek review of any
ensuing trial court order.
Dated: 10/30/2019 Siggins, P.J. PJ.
PRESIDING JUSTICE ]
Asian Americans etc. et al. v. San Francisco County Superior Court — A158317
2
Document Filed Date
October 31, 2019
Case Filing Date
June 18, 2019
Category
WRITS OF MANDATE OR PROH., CERTI., ETC./ADMIN. AGEN
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
Court of Appeal, First Appellate District Charles D. Johnson, Clerk/Executive Officer Electronically FILED on 10/30/2019 by G. King, Deputy Clerk IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE FitikD ASIAN AMERICANS ADVANCING San Francisco County Superior Court TSTICE—ASIAN LAW CAUCUS, et OCT $1 2019 , iti CLEBIC COURT Petitioners, A158317 oe v. . : . Deputy Clerk THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN (San Francisco County FRANCISCO COUNTY, - Super. Ct. No. CPF-19-516706) Respondent; CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et al., Real Parties in Interest. THE COURT:* The petition for writ of mandate is denied without prejudice. After the petition was filed, a series of events occurred which the trial court has not yet had the opportunity to address. On September 30, 2019, a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors asked the Federal Bureau of Investigation for a copy of the white paper at issue. On October 3, 2019, an Assistant United States Attorney sent purported copies of the white paper via electronic mail to that supervisor and to counsel for petitioners. Petitioners contend the document they received is not an “exact copy” of the document in the possession of the real parties in interest (Govt. Code, § 6253, subd. (b)), because it lacks certain header text described in the opposition papers originally filed in the trial court. * Siggins, P.J., Petrou, J., & Goode, J. (Retired Judge of the Contra Costa County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.)These developments raise a variety of issues never presented to or addressed by the trial court, such as factual issues of authority and authenticity, and legal issues of waiver and mootness. There may be other related developments and issues that arose after the trial court’s initial ruling. That court should be afforded the opportunity to consider and develop arecord regarding new developments in the first instance. This denial is without prejudice to petitioners’ renewal of their motion for peremptory’ writ.in the trial court, to permit that court to develop an augmented record and issue a further ruling. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008, subd. (b).) This denial is also without prejudice to either side filing a writ petition with this court to seek review of any ensuing trial court order. Dated: 10/30/2019 Siggins, P.J. PJ. PRESIDING JUSTICE ] Asian Americans etc. et al. v. San Francisco County Superior Court — A158317 2