4 NICS App. 169, HOOPA HEALTH ASSOC. v. HOOPA VALLEY TRIBAL COURT (February 1997)
IN THE HOOPA VALLEY TRIBAL COURT OF APPEALS
HOOPA VALLEY INDIAN RESERVATION
HOOPA, CALIFORNIA
Hoopa Health Association, Petitioner
v.
Hoopa Valley Tribal Court, Respondent
David Short, Real Party in Interest.
No. C-96-043 (February 13, 1997)
SUMMARY
Petition for Writ of Mandate directing trial court to vacate it decision denying Petitioner’s Motion to Vacate and ordering trial court to vacate a previously granted writ. Denial of motion to vacate is a discretionary act from which writ of mandate does not lie. Court favors a determination upon the merits. We deny the petition for writ of mandate.
FULL TEXT
Before: Elbridge Coochise, Chief Justice; Charles R. Hostnik, Justice; Douglas W. Hutchinson, Justice.
This matter came before the Hoopa Valley Tribal Court of Appeals pursuant to Hoopa Health Association’s Petition for Writ of Mandate, filed November 15, 1996. Petitioner files this request pursuant to Hoopa Valley Code, Title 3, Rule 22.
Procedural History
David Short filed a written complaint with the TERO Commission regarding his termination from employment with the Hoopa Health Association. The TERO Director, upon determining that Mr. Short’s grievance was not timely, informed him that there would be no investigation into his complaint.
Mr. Short subsequently sought and obtained a Writ of Mandate from the trial court compelling the TERO Director to conduct an investigation into his complaint. The Hoopa Health Association filed a motion requesting the trial court to vacate its order granting the writ. The trial court denied the motion. A Petition to this Court of Appeals for a Writ of Mandate followed.
4 NICS App. 169, HOOPA HEALTH ASSOC. v. HOOPA VALLEY TRIBAL COURT (February 1997) p. 170
Discussion
As this Court previously discussed in Hoopa Valley Indian Housing Authority v. Hoopa Valley Tribal Court; (Real Party in Interest, Clarence Lewis, Sr.), 4 NICS App. 164 (Hoopa 1997), and Hoopa Valley Tribal Council v. Hoopa Valley Tribal Court; (Real Parties in Interest: Troy S. Fletcher and George L. Nixon, III), 4 NICS App. 167 (Hoopa 1997), issuance of a writ of mandate is an extraordinary measure reserved for those exceptional circumstances in which no other form of relief is available. Issuance of an extraordinary writ is also discretionary.
This matter has not proceeded even beyond the administrative level. The trial court, in its order granting the writ, found that Mr. Short had not been properly notified of the grievance process. The trial court then ordered the TERO Director to perform a duty she was required to do. Petitioner moved to vacate the order and the trial court denied that motion. The denial is a discretionary act from which a writ of mandate does not lie.
The time to appeal the trial court’s denial of Petitioner’s Motion to Vacate has now passed. Administrative and trial court rules of procedure are in place; this matter should proceed accordingly. This Court favors a determination of this case upon the merits.1 Upon entry of a final judgment by the trial court, the appeals process would be available to the parties.
Order
Based on the foregoing, it is hereby ordered that the Petition for Writ of Mandate filed by the Hoopa Health Association is denied.
“The Court of Appeal is generally in a far better position to review a question when called upon to do so in an appeal instead of by way of a writ petition. When review takes place by way of appeal, the court has a more complete record, more time for deliberation and, therefore, more insight into the significance of the issues.” Omaha Indem. Co. v. Superior Court, 209 C. A.3d 1266, 1273 (1989).