Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. CGC09494876
THE COURT:Petitioners Eduardo Paniagua and Elena Asturias seek writ relief from an order denying their motion for leave to file a compulsory cross-complaint against real party in interest Thomas Roberts.
Review by mandamus is appropriate. (Foot’s Transfer & Storage Co. v. Superior Court (1980) 114 Cal.App.3d 897, 901-902.) We have reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs, and grant this petition by way of this memorandum opinion because “[t]he Courts of Appeal should dispose of causes that raise no substantial issues of law or fact by memorandum or other abbreviated form of opinion.” (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1.)
Real party in interest’s motion for judicial notice is denied. (People v. Preslie (1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 486, 493 [Court of Appeal will generally not take judicial notice of documents not presented to and considered by the trial court].) Even if we were to judicially notice the requested materials, our decision would not change.
There is no substantial evidence in the record that petitioners acted in bad faith so as to justify respondent’s denial of petitioners’ motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 426.50; Silver Organizations Ltd. v. Frank (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 94, 98-101; cf. Gherman v. Colburn (1977) 72 Cal.App.3d 544, 558-560; see also Code Civ. Proc., §§ 426.10, 426.30, subd. (a).) Our conclusion would be the same if we applied the abuse of discretion standard of review. (See Foot’s Transfer & Storage Co., supra, 114 Cal.App.3d at p. 901.)
In accordance with our prior notification to the parties that we might do so, we will direct issuance of a peremptory writ in the first instance. (Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 177-180.) Petitioners’ right to relief is obvious, and no useful purpose would be served by issuance of an alternative writ, further briefing and oral argument. (Ng v. Superior Court (1992) 4 Cal.4th 29, 35; see also Lewis v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1232, 1236-1237, 1240-1241; Brown, Winfield & Canzoneri, Inc. v. Superior Court (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1233, 1240-1244.)
Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue directing respondent superior court to vacate its order filed March 24, 2011 denying petitioners’ motion for leave to file cross-complaint, and to issue a new and different order granting petitioners’ motion. In the interests of justice, to prevent further delays in this proceeding, this decision shall be final as to this court immediately. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.490(b)(3).) The previously issued stay of the trial in this matter shall dissolve upon issuance of the remittitur. (Id. at rules 8.490(c), 8.272.) Petitioners shall recover their costs. (Id. at rule 8.493(a)(1)(A), (a)(2).)