Piazza v. Superior Court for the County of Solano

DispositionDescription: Petition summarily denied by order; Disposition Type: Final BY THE COURT: The petition for writ of mandate is denied. (Dews v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 660, 664 [review of appellate division ruling pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., 904.3 "is limited to the record of the proceedings below, and asks whether the lower court abused its discretion or exceeded its jurisdiction."].) Petitioner fails to establish that her interest in the outcome of the proceedings is substantial or that her legal rights are injuriously affected by the action she challenges. (See Braude v. City of Los Angeles (1990) 226 Cal.App.3d 83, 87; accord, Consolidated Irrigation Dist. v. City of Selma (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 187, 205 ["If the writ sought would enforce only a technical, abstract or moot right, the interest is not substantial for purposes of the beneficial interest requirement."].) Petitioner fails to explain why she would necessarily have prevailed at the hearing on the motion to suppress if the challenged continuance had been denied and the hearing held as scheduled. She also fails to explain her contention that a favorable ruling on the motion to suppress would inevitably have resulted in the dismissal of the entire action against her. Before: Humes, J., Banke, J., and Wiss, J. (Judge of the San Francisco County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution)

DocketDescription: Case complete.

DocketDescription: Order denying petition filed.; Notes: BY THE COURT: The petition for writ of mandate is denied. (Dews v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 660, 664 [review of appellate division ruling pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., 904.3 "is limited to the record of the proceedings below, and asks whether the lower court abused its discretion or exceeded its jurisdiction."].) Petitioner fails to establish that her interest in the outcome of the proceedings is substantial or that her legal rights are injuriously affected by the action she challenges. (See Braude v. City of Los Angeles (1990) 226 Cal.App.3d 83, 87; accord, Consolidated Irrigation Dist. v. City of Selma (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 187, 205 ["If the writ sought would enforce only a technical, abstract or moot right, the interest is not substantial for purposes of the beneficial interest requirement."].) Petitioner fails to explain why she would necessarily have prevailed at the hearing on the motion to suppress if the challenged continuance had been denied and the hearing held as scheduled. She also fails to explain her contention that a favorable ruling on the motion to suppress would inevitably have resulted in the dismissal of the entire action against her. Before: Humes, J., Banke, J., and Wiss, J. (Judge of the San Francisco County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution)

DocketDescription: Filed proof of service.

DocketDescription: Filed petition for writ of:; Notes: Petition for Writ of Mandate

DocketTrial Court Name: Solano County Superior Court - Main; County: Solano; Trial Court Case Number: FCR355011; Trial Court Judge: Davis, Terrye