§ 116.798.Writs of review, mandate, or prohibition relating to small claims division

2012 Law Revision Commission Comment. Section 116.798 is added solely to clarify which tribunal has jurisdiction of a writ petition relating to a small claims case after trial court unification. This provision neither expands nor contracts the circumstances under which a small claims litigant may seek an extraordinary writ. The proper tribunal for seeking such a writ depends on the stage of the case at the time of the act that is challenged in the writ petition. Subdivision (a) makes clear that a writ petition relating to the initial hearing in the small claims division of the superior court may be heard by a member of the court’s appellate division. See Cal. Const. art. VI, § 10 (“The … superior courts, and their judges have original jurisdiction … in proceedings for extraordinary relief in the nature of mandamus, certiorari, and prohibition.”); see also People v. Konow, 32 Cal. 4th 995, 1019- 21, 88 P.3d 36, 12 Cal. Rptr. 3d 301 (2004) (superior court judge who considers order entered by another superior court judge does not unconstitutionally enjoin, restrain, or otherwise interfere with judicial act of another superior court judge if later judge acts under statutory authority). A ruling on such a writ petition is not appealable. For a similar restriction, see Section 904.3. Under subdivision (a), the court of appeal and the Supreme Court also have jurisdiction to consider a writ petition relating to the initial hearing in the small claims division. See Cal. Const. art. VI, § 10 (“The Supreme Court, courts of appeal, … and their judges have original jurisdiction … in proceedings for extraordinary relief in the nature of mandamus certiorari, and prohibition.”). In addition to other grounds for denying the writ, however, those courts may deny the writ on the ground that it was not first presented to a lower tribunal pursuant to subdivision (a). See generally In re Ramirez, 89 Cal. App. 4th 1312, 1316, 1320, 108 Cal. Rptr. 229 (2001); In re Hillery, 202 Cal. App. 2d 293, 294, 20 Cal. Rptr. 759 (1962); Cal. R. Ct. 8.486; 2 B. Witkin, California Procedure Jurisdiction § 397, p. 1041 (5th ed. 2008). Subdivision (b) makes clear that a writ petition relating to a small claims appeal may only be heard by the court of appeal or by the Supreme Court. This rule is consistent with historical practice. See, e.g., Crouchman v. Superior Court, 45 Cal. 3d 1167, 755 P.2d 1075, 248 Cal. Rptr. 626 (1988); Universal City Nissan, Inc. v. Superior Court, 65 Cal. App. 4th 203, 75 Cal. Rptr. 2d 910 (1998); Houghtaling v. Superior Court, 17 Cal. App. 4th 1128, 21 Cal. Rptr. 2d 855 (1993); see generally Cal. Const. art. VI, § 11 (Except for death penalty cases, “courts of appeal have appellate jurisdiction when superior courts have original jurisdiction in causes of a type within the appellate jurisdiction of the courts of appeal on June 30, 1995 ….”). For the filing fee for such a writ petition, see Gov’t Code §§ 68926, 68926.1. For guidance on the applicable procedures, see Cal. R. Ct. 8.485-8.493. Subdivision (c) makes clear that a writ petition relating to a postjudgment enforcement order of the small claims division may be heard by the appellate division of the superior court. This codifies General Electric Capital Auto Financial Services, Inc. v. Appellate Division of the Superior Court, 88 Cal. App. 4th 136, 105 Cal. Rptr. 2d 552 (2001). For the filing fee for such a writ petition, see Gov’t Code § 70621. For guidance on the applicable procedures, see Cal. R. Ct. 8.930-8.936. Subdivision (c) further makes clear that the court of appeal and the Supreme Court also have jurisdiction to consider a writ petition relating to a postjudgment enforcement order of the small claims division. See Cal. Const. art. VI, § 10. In addition to other grounds for denying the writ, however, those courts may deny the writ on the ground that it was not first presented to the appellate division of the superior court. See sources cited supra.