Friday, March 11, 2016

Orcilla v. Big Sur, Inc. (Cal. Ct. App. - March 11, 2016)

From the Court of Appeal this morning:

"It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on February 11, 2016, be modified in the following particulars:

On page 6, the second full paragraph, insert the following as a footnote after the last sentence in the paragraph (“The Orcillas timely appealed.”):

While this matter was pending, the parties notified us that the case had been settled and the Orcillas requested dismissal of the appeal. “After the record on appeal is filed, dismissal of the action based on abandonment or stipulation of the parties is discretionary, rather than mandatory.” (City of Morgan Hill v. Brown (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1114, 1121, fn. 5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.244.) We concluded that the matter is important and of continuing public interest, warranting our review. (Burch v. George (1994) 7 Cal.4th 246, 253, fn. 4.) Accordingly, we denied the request for dismissal. In deciding the appeal on the merits, we follow established precedent in retaining jurisdiction to resolve the issues presented in the case."

That probably should have been in the original opinion.  But better late than never.