We thought that, with the broadening amendment of rule 8.66, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye might soon replace the individual extension orders of the six Court of Appeal districts with a single, uniform, statewide order.  That’s apparently not going to happen.

Yesterday, as the initial Court of Appeal implementation orders were nearing expiration, the Chief Justice issued a new order authorizing each district to “[i]ssue an order renewing the current emergency order extending by no more than 30 days the time periods specified by the California Rules of Court.”  The authorization is “in effect for proceedings in which the time period in the California Rules of Court would occur between the day in April 2020 that is the last day of the court’s current implementation order, and through and including May 18, 2020.”

The authorization order also states, “Second extensions of time are limited to acts and events that occur prior to the filing of a decision by the Court of Appeal.”  This is somewhat cryptic, but it apparently means, as stated in the latest implementation orders of the First, Second, and Fourth Districts, “the time to file a petition for rehearing or a request for publication and the date of finality shall not, under any circumstances, be extended by more than a total of 30 days.”

It’s unclear not only why timing decisions have been separately left in the hands of each Court of Appeal district, but also why the districts haven’t been authorized to “toll” time periods as now allowed by rule 8.66.

Finally, the Supreme Court’s own current extension order expires in just four days and we haven’t seen any renewal of that order yet.

Related:

Supreme Court broadens its own extension order a bit

Still no statewide emergency appellate time rule, but each Court of Appeal authorized to give additional relief [Updated]

Judicial Council expands Chief Justice’s emergency power to extend appellate times

Governor’s order gives Chief Justice exceptionally broad emergency powers [Updated]