I have yet to meet an attorney who would not welcome the appellate court providing a tentative opinion prior to oral argument. All upside, no downside, right?
There was a downside in Navellier v. Putnam (D1d5 Aug. 17, 2023) No. A166476 (reh’g denied with mods Aug. 30, 2023) (nonpub. opn.). The plaintiffs’ case was dismissed for failure to timely serve the defendants, and on appeal the plaintiffs argued that service was impossible or impracticable. Affirming, the Court of Appeal rejected the plaintiffs’ contention by noting they could have mail served.
But that issue was not raised on appeal, the plaintiffs argued in a petition for rehearing, and a rehearing must be granted when the appeal is decided on an unbriefed issue. (Gov. Code, § 68081.)
True, the Court conceded, but the issue was “fairly encompassed” in the other related issues raised on appeal, citing the standard in People v. Alice (2007) 41 Cal.4th 668, 677. Not surprising—petitions for rehearing are almost always denied, even in close calls like this.
But then the Court threw this zinger: Even if this was truly a new issue, the plaintiffs” never requested leave to file a supplemental brief” per California Rules of Court, rule 8.200(a)(4), after the plaintiffs learned the Court was poised to decide the appeal on that issue when the Court issued its tentative opinion several weeks before oral argument.
In other words, if the Court of Appeal issues a tentative opinion deciding your case on an unbriefed issue, you had better move under rule 8.200(a)(4) for leave to submit a supplemental brief. If you don’t, don’t count on relief in a petition for rehearing.