Skip to content
Name: Hall v. Superior Court
Case #: B184247
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 7
Opinion Date: 10/26/2005
Summary

Petitioner sought a writ of mandate to compel the trial court to file and rule on her Pitchess motion, which was filed after a 30-day cut-off imposed by the court. The appellate court granted the writ, finding that the practice of requiring all motions to be filed and heard 30 days before trial is the functional equivalent of a local rule, and as such was invalid because it was not properly promulgated or adopted in accordance with statute or the Rules of Court. Further, there was nothing in the record to suggest the court exercised its discretion when imposing the date cut-off, or considered the facts of the case.