After Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye yesterday authorized individual Courts of Appeal to retroactively expand the scope of their prior emergency orders extending appellate deadlines, the Supreme Court today itself updated its own earlier order. At least two appellate courts — the Second and Fourth Districts — have exercised the power that was authorized and have done likewise.
The Supreme Court and Court of Appeal updates seem mainly designed to take advantage of the part of last week’s amendment of rule 8.66 that allows the extension of “any time periods” rather than — under the prior rule — of just “the time to do any act required or permitted” by the appellate rules. As explained, this change clarifies that the times during which reviewing court decisions become final can be extended. However, the new Supreme Court and Second and Fourth District orders address an uncertainty we pointed out was created by the rule 8.66 amendment — they specify there is no extension of finality times for decisions that are final immediately on filing.
Neither the Supreme Court nor Court of Appeal orders invoke the power under the amended rule to now “toll,” as opposed to “extend,” times. (The difference is explained here.) But a statewide tolling order might be on the horizon. (See the update here.)
Among other things, the Supreme Court’s order says:
- “[T]he court extends by 30 days the time periods specified by the California Rules of Court for acts or events in proceedings before this court otherwise due to occur between March 20, 2020 and April 20, 2020, inclusive.”
- The extension “applies to the time period for the finality of a decision of this court where finality is not immediate.”
- The times “for this court to order review and to extend time to order review . . . are extended by 30 days in matters in which either a petition was pending before this court between March 20, 2020, and April 20, 2020, or this court could have ordered review on its own motion between March 20, 2020, and April 20, 2020.”
- The 90-day period to issue opinions is not extended. Nor could it be, because it’s in the constitution.
