## Facts

- Richard Palma filed a negligence action against U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. and Greenberg after he was injured when one of defendants’ trucks or trailer units moved/rolled, allegedly because it was not adequately secured overnight.
- Palma asserted defendants’ overnight parking and securing practices created a foreseeable risk of harm to motorists or others nearby.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment; the trial court denied the motion, finding triable issues of material fact regarding negligence.
- Defendants sought writ relief in the Court of Appeal to compel the trial court to grant summary judgment.
- The writ petition did not request a peremptory writ in the first instance, and Palma was not notified that such relief was being considered; the Court of Appeal did not solicit opposition, and none was filed.
- The Court of Appeal issued a document purporting to be the writ itself (rather than an order directing issuance), and the trial court entered summary judgment in obedience to it.
- Palma did not petition the Supreme Court for review of the writ proceeding, but later appealed from the summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether Palma’s failure to seek Supreme Court review of the Court of Appeal’s peremptory writ precluded him from challenging the resulting summary judgment on appeal under res judicata or law-of-the-case principles.
2. Whether summary judgment for defendants was proper given the evidentiary record on negligence, including whether the trucks were adequately secured and whether any risk of harm was foreseeable.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of California denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the appeal.
- The Court held that, on these facts, the Court of Appeal’s peremptory writ did not have preclusive effect barring Palma’s appeal from the judgment entered in compliance with the writ.
- The Court reversed the summary judgment because triable issues of material fact existed regarding defendants’ negligence.

## Legal Principles

- An appellate court should not issue a peremptory writ of mandate in the first instance unless the respondent and any real party in interest have notice that such relief is being considered (or requested) and have filed a merits response or been given an opportunity to do so.
- The preferred procedure is to issue an order/decision directing that a writ issue, rather than issuing the writ immediately, to allow an opportunity for higher-court review before the writ becomes operative.
- A procedurally defective or ambiguously issued peremptory writ—particularly one issued without notice and without clear indication it is a reviewable appellate decision—need not be given res judicata or law-of-the-case effect to bar later review of the final judgment.
- Summary judgment is improper where the record shows triable disputes about breach and foreseeability in negligence, including whether defendants’ conduct created a foreseeable risk of harm.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court held that a peremptory writ issued without prior notice and an opportunity to respond, and in a procedurally unclear form, could not bar later appellate review of the final judgment; it then reversed summary judgment because factual disputes remained on whether defendants negligently failed to secure their trucks and thereby created a foreseeable risk of injury.


Palma v. U.S. Indus. Fasteners, Inc., 36 Cal. 3d 171 (Cal. 1984)