Fear Not Law Articles: Fink v. Superior Court

Fink v. Superior Court

Filed 9/15/06 Fink v. Superior Court CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

DAVID FINK,

Petitioner,

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY,

Respondent;

WARREN GARTH KIRWIN et al.,

Real Parties in Interest.

G037364

(Super. Ct. No. 05CC09179)

O P I N I O N

Original proceedings; petition for a writ of mandate to challenge orders of the Superior Court of Orange County, Mary Fingal Erickson, Judge. Petition granted in part and denied in part.

David Fink, in pro. per., for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

Michael G. Dawe and Victor Rocha, Prenovost, Normandin, Bergh, Dawe, for Real Parties in Interest.

* * *

THE COURT:*

David Fink filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging various trial court orders in this $10,000 debt collection case. For most of the orders Fink has an adequate remedy at law, and we summarily deny the petition on those issues. Fink raises one issue, however, for which he does not have an adequate remedy and which must be addressed now to avoid irreparable injury. Palma notice was given. (Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 180.)

When Fink filed this action in August 2005 he filed an application for a fee waiver. His application was granted pursuant to Government Code section 68511.3, subdivision (a)(6)(A), which provides that persons receiving specified government benefits are entitled as a matter of right to a fee waiver. (See also Cal. Rules of Court, rule 985(b).) Fink prosecuted this action in reliance on the fee waiver order until June 2006, when the trial judge assigned to the case summarily, and without prior notice, questioned Fink about his assets and purported to rescind the fee waiver.

It began during a regular law and motion calendar. When Judge Erickson called the case, she verbally dressed down petitioner and counsel for real parties in interest for instances of conduct she considered â€

Description	Appellant filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging various trial court orders in this $10,000 debt collection case. For most of the orders appellant has an adequate remedy at law, and the court denied the petition on those issues. Appellant raises one issue, however, for which he does not have an adequate remedy and which must be addressed now to avoid irreparable injury. Once Appellant was granted a fee waiver, he is required to advise the court of any changes in his ability to pay the court fees. Because the order was not appropriate at that time, there was no ruling on this issue. But the court did point out that the order seemed excessive. Palma notice was given. (Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 180.)
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.