P. v. Superior Court
In this matter we have reviewed the petition and the opposition thereto, which we conclude adequately address the issues raised by the petition. We have determined that resolution of the matter involves the application of settled principles of law, and that issuance of a peremptory writ in the first instance would cause undue delay in resolving this action. We therefore issue a peremptory writ in the first instance. (Code Civ. Proc., 1088; Palmav.U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 178-179; Alexander v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 1218, 1222-1223, disapproved on another groundin Hassan v. Mercy American River Hospital (2003) 31 Cal.4th 709, 724, fn. 4.) The People seek a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its order dismissing a recommitment petition filed pursuant to the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVP Act or SVPA) (Welf. & Inst. Code, 6600 et seq.). Court grant the mandate petition, finding that the real party in interest cannot now claim that the extensive delays in the proceeding violated his due process rights where his and his attorneys actions are largely responsible for those delays. Petitioner is directed to prepare and have the peremptory writ of mandate issued, copies served, and the original filed with the clerk of this court, together with proof of service on all parties.
Comments on P. v. Superior Court