Resolving what it calls “a long-standing conflict,” the Supreme Court in Dhillon v. John Muir Health today holds to be appealable a superior court order that granted an administrative mandate petition’s request that the matter be remanded for proceedings before an administrative body. [Disclosure: Horvitz & Levy is appellate counsel for John Muir Health.] The court’s unanimous opinion by Justice Leondra Kruger finds to be important that “[t]he issuance of the writ did not definitively resolve the dispute between the parties, but it did mark the end of the writ proceeding in the trial court.”
The court also illuminates the “important differences” in the type of review a party gets on appeal as opposed to an appellate writ petition. (In the case before it, the appealing party had also challenged the superior court’s remand order by petitioning the Court of Appeal for discretionary writ relief, and the writ petition was summarily denied.) Only on appeal does a party have the right to oral argument and a written opinion.
The court reverses the First District, Division Three, Court of Appeal. It disapproves four Court of Appeal decisions: a 2012 opinion from the First District, Division One; a 2002 opinion from the Second District, Division Two; a 1999 opinion from the Fourth District, Division One; and a 1998 from the Second District, Division Three.
[Updated to include the disclosure.]