Have you ever felt the frustration of getting a stipulation from opposing counsel, only for the court to reject it? Well, when it comes to a briefing extension, the Supreme Court just ordered the Court of Appeal to give the full 60-day stipulated extension, and vacated the appellate court’s 46-day extension.
In Aaronoff v. Olson, the Second District, Division Two, “exercises[d] its discretion under rule 8.68, California Rules of Court” to partially grant a 60-day request to file a reply brief. The court granted 46 days instead.
On the plaintiff’s original writ petition, the Supreme Court in Aaronoff v. Court of Appeal (Olson) issued an alternative writ directing Division Two “(i) to vacate its . . . order . . . and to issue a new order giving effect to the parties’ stipulated extension as filed . . . or (ii) in the alternative, to show cause before this court why it has not done so.”
The same day, the Court of Appeal changed the reply brief due date to December 16.
When the parties to an appeal stipulate to a briefing extension provided under California Rules of Court, rule 8.212, “[t]he reviewing court may not shorten a stipulated extension.”
Thanks to David Ettinger for reporting on this case. See his post for a more detailed legal analysis of extensions under rule 8.212.
Disclaimer: I joined an amici curiae brief filed with the Supreme Court on December 5, urging the Court to grant the requested relief.