HelloCustomerand welcome to JustAnswer. N Cal Attorney has referred your question to me and I have researched the California Rules of Court regarding Civil Appeals and remittiturs, as well as some of the best-known cases on the subject (which is
The applicable Rule of Court is Rule 8.272, which reads in pertinent part as follows (I have omitted the notes and inapplicable sections):
Rule 8.272. Remittitur
(a) Issuance of remittitur
A Court of Appeal must issue a remittitur after a decision in an appeal.
(c) Immediate issuance, stay, and recall
(2) On a party's or its own motion or on stipulation, and for good cause, the court may stay a remittitur's issuance for a reasonable period or order its recall.
(3) An order recalling a remittitur issued after a decision by opinion does not supersede the opinion or affect its publication status.
Most of the cases which interpret the ability of a court of appeal to recall a remittitur are criminal cases and I cannot locate a case which is precisely on point in answering the question you raised.
However, the cases do establish that a mistake or an improvident act which results in prejudicial error or a miscarriage of justice may nevertheless be corrected upon a recall of the remittitur. That rule would appear to apply to both civil and criminal cases.
Interpreting this procedural rule in combination with Rule 8.272(c)(3), it appears to me, since the recall "does not supersede the opinion", that a remittitur does restore jurisdiction to the trial court, even if issuance of the remittitur results in prejudicial error or a miscarriage of justice. Thus, any orders issued by the trial court would be valid and enforcible ... up until the moment the remittitur is recalled.
At that point, pursuant to the usual rules on appeal, the trial court is divested of jurisdiction and its orders (in this case, those issued before and
after the case was remitted) are stayed pending further order of the court of appeal.
The rules do not specifically address the procedure by which the court of appeal is to consider the orders of the trial court that were issued while the case was remitted. However, no logical conclusion can be reached except that the court of appeal can, for the purpose of correcting the error or miscarriage of justice created by the issuance of the remittitur, review all
orders of the trial court, including those issued while the cause was remitted.
Presumably, if the post-remittitur order of the trial court would be invalid under a correct interpretation of whatever law led the court of appeal to recall the remittitur, that error can be corrected, along with any others, by a subsequent order of the court of appeal. In other words, at this point, the entire case is on appeal and the court of appeal can resolve any issue in the case, including the post-remittitur orders of the trial court.
This is a very esoteric point of appellate law. I hope my explanation has clarified the situation for you. If not, or you have any other questions about the situation, please let me know.