Nauman v. Appellate Div. of Superior Court CA4/3
Filed 12/1/14 Nauman v. Appellate Div. of Superior Court CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
NANCY JANE NAUMAN,
Petitioner,
v. G050786
APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE (Super. Ct. Nos. 13WM02844, ORANGE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, 30-2014-00745573)
Respondent; OPINION
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH,
Real Party in Interest.
Original proceedings; petition for a writ of mandate to challenge an order of the Appellate Division of the Orange County Superior Court, Deborah C. Servino, Glenn R. Salter, and Richard Y. Lee, Judges. Petition granted. Frank Ospino, Public Defender, Mark S. Brown and Scott Van Camp, Deputy Public Defenders for Petitioner.
No appearance for respondent. Jennifer McGrath, City Attorney and Daniel K. Ohl, Deputy City Attorney, for Real Party in Interest.
THE COURT:
Respondent trial court denied petitioner, Nancy Jane Nauman’s discovery motion and she sought review in the Superior Court Appellate Division. The Appellate Division denied relief on the basis that Nauman has an adequate remedy at law. We disagree and grant the petition.
FACTS
Petitioner, Nancy Jane Nauman, was arrested for two misdemeanor counts of driving under the influence. According to the police report, dispatch advised Huntington Beach police officers that a possible drunk driver left a bar on Beach Boulevard traveling in an unknown direction. The caller identified the driver as a female and provided a description of the license plate number and the car, an older yellow Dodge Dart. According to the police report, while traveling on Main Street, officers observed a yellow Dodge Dart with the same license plate number that had been broadcast by the dispatcher. According to the officer who prepared the police report, as they were traveling behind the car traveling southbound on Main Street, they observed the car “as it began to drift into the single lane of northbound Main Street approximately three times for several seconds, violation of CVC 21658(a).” According to the police report, the officers conducted a traffic stop and spoke to Nauman, who was identified as the sole
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)