In City of Carlsbad v. Ed Scholtz (Seapker), published July 8, 2016, the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division 1, dismissed an appeal from a judgment denying a petition for writ of mandate challenging an evidentiary ruling by a hearing officer in an ongoing administrative appeal. The appeal had two stages: A hearing before an officer who would submit nonbinding findings and recommendations to the city council, and the councils' review of the findings and final decision. The real party's administrative appeal was in the first stage. During the hearing, a city employee refused to answer a cross-examination question. As an evidentiary sanction, the hearing officer struck all testimony and evidence related to that issue, and barred the city from submitting any additional evidence on the issue. The city petitioned the superior court to reverse the evidentiary sanction. The trial court denied the petition, ruling that the city had an adequate remedy in administrative mandamus at the end of the appeal.
The appellate court concluded the trial court's ruling was not appealable. An appealable judgment is brought when there is no issue left between the parties for further consideration except compliance or noncompliance with the terms of the court's decree. In this case, the trial court did not issue a final decree with which the parties might or might not comply. It simply denied the petition on procedural grounds. The underlying administrative appeal had not yet reached a final decision. The proceedings between the parties had not yet concluded.
Comments