ADVANTAGES

105. Unlawful Detainer
Where a judgment as first entered in an action of forcible entry and detainer fails, as the result of a clerical misprision, to name the defendants against whom it was rendered, it is the duty of the trial court to amend it in conformity with the facts, so that it will properly designate such defendants; the amendment may be made either before or after an appeal from a judgment has been finally determined, and if the trial court refuses to make the correction, mandamus will lie to enforce it. Boust v Superior Court of County of Kern (1912) 162 Cal 343, 122 P 956
A petitioner, who had conveyed his apartment house and furnishings to others under a conditional exchange agreement, was not entitled to a writ of mandamus to compel the trial court to proceed to judgment in his claim and delivery and unlawful detainer actions, notwithstanding his appeal from a judgment in a third action against him for rescission of the exchange contract, in view of the involved and interdependent questions presented by the three cases. Green v Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1929) 98 Cal App 665, 277 P 349
A proceeding in mandamus to compel the superior court to quash a writ of possession, is sued on rendition of a judgment for plaintiff in an unlawful detainer action, was dismissed as moot where, following reversal of such judgment on the ground that the justice court had jurisdiction of the controversy, the superior court transferred the case to the justice court; where the justice court tried the case, rendered a judgment in favor of plaintiff and issued a writ of restitution; and where the judgment had become final and, not being void on its face, could not be collaterally attacked in the mandamus proceeding. Coyne v Superior Court of Santa Clara County (1947) 80 Cal App 2d 898, 183 P2d 36
Writ of mandate will issue to compel superior court to vacate its order continuing trial of unlawful detainer action to await final decision in district court of appeal of declaratory relief action by defendants in unlawful detainer action affecting trustee's sale through which plaintiff obtained title to property in question where, if mandamus were not granted, trial court could continue unlawful detainer action from time to time awaiting supreme court decision in declaratory relief action, and where there was important issue in unlawful detainer action that was not common to both cases. Kartheiser v Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1959, 2nd Dist) 174 Cal App 2d 617, 345 P2d 135
On petition of the plaintiff in an action of unlawful detainer, a peremptory writ of mandate will issue commanding the trial court to give that action precedence on the pretrial calendar to expedite setting it for trial (CCP § 1179a), where the issue of possession remains, and the record shows that that issue can be resolved only by a determination of the disputed question of title to the property that remains in the premises. Cohen v Superior Court of San Francisco (1967, 1st Dist) 248 Cal App 2d 551, 56 Cal Rptr 813
On inmate's petition for a writ of mandate/prohibition, seeking to enjoin the California Supreme Court from ruling against the inmate on a petition for writ of mandate to compel that court to reconsider its denial of the inmate's petition for review of a State Bar complaint about the inmate's attorney's performance, the federal court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to compel a particular result by the California Supreme Court. Shaheen v Cal. Supreme Court (2002, ND Cal) 2002 US Dist LEXIS 24969

Testimonials

Satisfied customers are saying