21
shows the tenant is entitled to relief, the court must issue the
writ because there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in
the ordinary course of law, and therefore the tenant “is entitled
as a matter of right to the writ.” (Powers, supra, 10 Cal.4th at
p. 114; see Leone v. Medical Board, supra, 22 Cal.4th at pp. 669-
670 [when a writ petition constitutes the exclusive means of
obtaining appellate review of an order, “an appellate court must
judge the petition on its procedural and substantive merits”].)
In this case, at the time Cepeda filed his notice of appeal on
June 8, 2023, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department had
served Cepeda with a writ of execution and five-day notice to
vacate the premises, with a June 8 scheduled lockout date.
Cepeda requested the trial court stay the writ of possession until
the court could hear his section 663 motion to vacate, but the
court denied his request. Because the possession-only judgment
was not immediately appealable, there was no adequate remedy
at law. Moreover, if Cepeda filed his petition before he was
locked out, he could have made a showing of irreparable harm
(and requested a stay pending resolution of the petition).
Regardless of whether he faced an imminent lockout, Cepeda
could have made a showing that he did not have an adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law because there was no
scheduled trial on damages, and thus no final judgment from
which he could appeal.