City of Los Angeles v. Los Angeles-Inyo Farms Co.

MARKS, J.

This is a motion to dismiss the appeal or affirm the judgment made under the provisions of section 3, Rule Y, Rules for the Supreme Court and District Courts of Appeal, which became effective on July 1, 1932. It is recited in the moving papers that the “Motion will be based

[63]

upon, the clerk’s transcript on appeal, the reporter’s transcript on appeal, upon the appellants’ opening brief and respondents’ brief.” From this statement it would appear that respondents expect this court, in deciding the motion, to examine the same records that it would have to review were the case submitted on its merits. If we should undertake to do this it would result in a practical advancement of the cause on the calendar by use of this motion. If the motion were denied we would have to review the same ground a second time, after the submission of the case on its merits and also write a second opinion. We do not understand the purpose of the rule to be to greatly increase the work and time that the members of this court must devote to cases pending before it.

Until a different interpretation of the rule is given us, we have concluded that ordinarily we should examine and carefully consider all papers filed on the hearing of the motion and the appellants' opening brief. If, after so doing, in the ordinary case, we are satisfied that the appeal is without any merit, the motion should be granted; otherwise, it should be denied. The court may then put the case on the “Ready for Submission Docket”.- The following cases have been decided under this new rule:

Dalton

v.

Los Angeles College of Chiropractic,

125 Cal. App. 196 [13 Pac. (2d) 546];

Thomas

v.

Caine,

125 Cal. App. 201 [13 Pac. (2d) 548];

Sumner

v.

Edmunds,