19
Section 1086, which governs writ petitions, has
discretionary and mandatory components. As discussed,
section 1086 provides a writ of mandate “must be issued in all
cases where there is not a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy, in
the ordinary course of law.” (Italics added.) Thus, the reviewing
court first determines whether a plain, speedy, and adequate
remedy is available to the petitioner. If the petitioner has a right
to appeal, the inquiry into whether that remedy is adequate is
discretionary: “The discretionary aspect of writ review comes
into play primarily when the petitioner has another remedy by
appeal and the issue is whether the alternative remedy is
adequate.” (Powers, supra, 10 Cal.4th at p. 113; accord, People v.
Mena (2012) 54 Cal.4th 146, 153.) But if the court finds no other
plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law,
the court “must” issue the writ.
As the Powers court explained, “When an extraordinary
writ proceeding is the only avenue of appellate review, a
reviewing court’s discretion is quite restricted . . . . ‘“[W]here one
has a substantial right to protect or enforce, and this may be
accomplished by such a writ, and there is no other plain, speedy
and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, he [or she] is
entitled as a matter of right to the writ, or perhaps more
correctly, in other words, it would be an abuse of discretion to
refuse it.”’” (Powers, supra, 10 Cal.4th at p. 114; accord, J&A
Mash & Barrel, LLC v. Superior Court of Fresno County (2022)
74 Cal.App.5th 1, 17 [because orders regarding expungement of
lis pendens may be reviewed only by filing a writ of mandate,
“[t]his court’s ordinary authority to rely on discretionary reasons
to decline review is therefore constrained”].)