Pinkins v. Superior Court CA4/2

California Court of Appeal Mar 15, 2013 No. E055799Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court granted a petition for writ of mandate directing the trial court to modify its order denying a fee waiver to be without prejudice and to consider any new, updated application under statutory standards.

Issues

Whether the trial court should have denied the petitioner's request for a fee waiver without prejudice to allow for a new application with updated information.

Disposition. Petition granted; peremptory writ issued.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“we consider it appropriate simply to authorize petitioner to submit a new application for a fee waiver to the trial court containing her updated information, and to direct the trial court to consider any such application under the statutory standards.”

“Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue, directing the Superior Court of Riverside County to modify its order denying petitioner’s request for a fee waiver to provide that the denial is without prejudice.”

Filed 3/15/13 Pinkins v. Superior Court CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

TONYA PINKINS,

Petitioner, E055799

v. (Super.Ct.No. RID1104042)

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF OPINION RIVERSIDE COUNTY,

Respondent;

ERIC BLAIR WINTER,

Real Party in Interest.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for writ of mandate. Tamara

Wagner, Temporary Judge. Petition granted.

Tonya Pinkins, in pro. per., for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

No appearance for Real Party in Interest.

In this matter, we have requested a response from real party in interest, but

none has been received. Given the lapse of time since the petition was filed, we

consider it appropriate simply to authorize petitioner to submit a new application

for a fee waiver to the trial court containing her updated information, and to direct

the trial court to consider any such application under the statutory standards.

Pinkins v. Superior Court CA4/2

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

TONYA PINKINS,

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF OPINION RIVERSIDE COUNTY,

ERIC BLAIR WINTER,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISPOSITION

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

HOLLENHORST J.

KING J.

AI Brief