Skip to main content
Please enter a legal issue and/or a location
Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select

Find a Lawyer

More Options

Brown Winfield & Canzoneri, Inc. v. Sup. Ct., No. S156598

By FindLaw Staff on February 02, 2010 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

In writ proceedings arising from parties' insurance coverage dispute, a court of appeals' dismissal of the writ proceeding is affirmed as the court of appeal did not err in dismissing its August 28, 2007 order comprising the "suggestive" Palma notice at issue, and subsequent settlement of the litigation underlying the petition rendered moot the relief sought in that petition. It is not improper for an appellate court to issue a "suggestive" Palma notice, and further, it may do so without first having received or solicited opposition from the real party in interest. However, if a trial court decides on its own motion to revisit its interim ruling in response to a suggestive Palma notice -- an action within its inherent authority -- then it must inform the parties of its intent to do so, and provide them with an opportunity to be heard. 

Read Brown Winfield & Canzoneri, Inc. v. Sup. Ct., No. S156598 [HTML]

Read Brown Winfield & Canzoneri, Inc. v. Sup. Ct., No. S156598 [PDF]

Filed February 1, 2010


Opinion by Judge George

For Appellant:  Bingham McCutchen, Bruce A. Friedman, Kenneth S. Meyers, Gina M. Simas; Shernoff Bidart Darras & Echeverria, Michael J. Bidart, Ricardo Echeverria; The Ehrlich Law Firm and Jeffrey Isaac Ehrlich

For Appellee:  Cochran, Davis & Associates, Joan E. Cochran; Thompson & Alessio, Kris P. Thompson and Jeffrey K. Miyamoto

You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Meeting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and how to best protect your rights. Visit our attorney directory to find a lawyer near you who can help.

Or contact an attorney near you:
Copied to clipboard