California WCABClaims administrator

The Cities Group

The Cities Group is named as a claims administrator in 12 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2025. The disputes run to Temporary disability (6), Permanent disability rating (2) and AOE/COE (1). Defense most often ran through Laughlin, Falbo, Levy & Moresi (6). The employer appearing most often is City of Foster City (5). The office that heard the most of them is San Francisco.

Decisions: 12
Years: 2021–2025
Issues disputed: 5
District offices: 2

What they litigate

Disputed issues across the decisions this claims administrator is named in. Every row opens the decisions it counts.

Who defends them

4 more firms appear in the same decisions and are not listed: we could not read which side they were on.

Whose claims they run

City of Foster City5

Where they appear

San Francisco 9
Oakland 3

How the appealed decisions came out

These are decisions that were appealed and published — the tail of a system that mostly settles. Most claims end in a compromise and release or a stipulation and never reach a panel, so nothing below describes how this claims administrator does its work. It describes how a set of appealed disputes came out.

5 for the applicant
3 for the defense
2 returned for more record

Counted over 9 appealed decisions. Not this claims administrator’s book of work. A decision that went one way on one issue and the other way on another is counted in both columns, so the figures add up to more than the total.

Decisions

Newest decisions this claims administrator is named in, each with the passage the panel turned on and a link to the official PDF.

ADJ18355035 · 2025-09-16 · San Francisco District OfficeAOE/COEremanded
Determinative passage · p.9Gordon does note the contribution of the ongoing use of the hand for nearly five years as a police officer and general use. (Defendant's Exhibit B at 15: 23 § 16:4.) As noted by the WCJ, his testimony and reporting is contradictory at moments, but Dr. Gordon still concludes that the current condition is the natural progression of the treatment for the original injury. As a result, the WCJ found the reporting not substantial. We too agree that the report is not substantial. This results in a lack of substantial medical evidence of causation for the current symptoms, which must be addressed before any findings can be made.
The WCAB found that the AME's report was not substantial evidence to support a finding of cumulative trauma injury, as it was contradictory and did not clearly establish causation for a new injury. The matter was remanded for further development of the record.
Official decision · page 9 →
ADJ12075922 · 2025-09-12 · San Francisco District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Award (F&A) issued by the workers compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on June 13, 2025, wherein the WCJ found, in relevant part, that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to his left knee, right knee, lower back, and left hip resulting in an award of 69% permanent disability based on the medical reporting agreed medical evaluator (AME) Dr. Peter Mandell, M.D. The WCJ also found that defendant unreasonably delayed or refused payment of partial permanent and temporary disability indemnity compensation and issued two penalties for defendant's unreasonable delay of payment of compensation pursuant to Labor Code1 section 5814.
The WCJ's finding of 69% permanent disability based on Dr. Mandell's AME reports was upheld as supported by substantial evidence, and penalties were affirmed for defendant's unreasonable delay in payment of temporary and permanent disability indemnity.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ18656564 · 2024-12-02 · Oakland District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award (F&A) issued on August 30, 2024, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found as relevant that (1) while employed as a bus driver on June 14, 2023, applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to his right shoulder; and (2) the injury caused an additional period of temporary disability beginning on April 19, 2024 and continuing indefinitely thereafter.
The WCJ's finding of temporary disability benefits entitlement from April 18, 2024 and continuing indefinitely was supported by credible applicant testimony and medical evidence, despite defendant's contention that Dr. Ting's opinion of permanent and stationary status was dispositive. The Appeals Board found Dr. Ting's opinion was based on inadequate medical history and unsupported by other medical reports, and applicant's testimony that he never declined surgery was credible and unrebutted.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ11489504 · 2024-08-05 · Oakland District OfficeTemporary disabilitymixed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award (F&A) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on May 20, 2024, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant sustained injury to his neck, low back, left shoulder, and psyche while employed by defendant as a bus operator during the period up through April 4, 2018; that applicant was permanent and stationary on July 23, 2020; that applicant is entitled to temporary disability for the period of July 29, 2019, to July 23, 2020; and that:
The WCAB found applicant entitled to temporary disability indemnity for the period July 29, 2019 to July 23, 2020, rejecting defendant's claim for credit for overpayment for certain periods because the retirement was compelled by industrial injury and not voluntary.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ12075922 · 2023-09-08 · San Francisco District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.7Based on my analysis of the entire record, I find that applicant has met his burden of proof with respect to TTD starting March 11, 2019. In its brief, defendant makes much of the fact that applicant went out for unrelated reasons in September 2018 and began seeking treatment for the knee after exhausting his leave. However, this timeline-and the connotation of ulterior motives it carries- does not outweigh the entirety of the medical evidence in the case, according to which applicant became incapable of performing his job in March 2019, specifically as a result of symptoms in the left knee. There is contemporaneous reporting from Dr. Solomon in exhibit 16, as well as reports from both QMEs in exhibits 13 and 14-all three opined that applicant's left knee symptoms were disabling absent surgical intervention.
The evidence, including QME reports, treatment records, and credible testimony, supported the finding that applicant was totally temporarily disabled from March 11, 2019, due to his industrial left knee injury, entitling him to TTD indemnity.
Official decision · page 7 →
ADJ11489504 · 2023-08-04 · Oakland District OfficePermanent disability ratingmixed
Determinative passage · p.4DISCUSSION The Second District Court of Appeals has explained that:
The WCAB found that temporary disability and permanent disability indemnity serve different purposes and that crediting temporary disability overpayment against permanent disability can be disruptive. The WCAB deferred the issue of credit for temporary disability overpayment due to lack of findings on permanent and stationary date and psychiatric injury issues, but affirmed a 22% permanent disability rating based on QME opinion.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ6831983 · 2022-12-14 · San Francisco District OfficeDiscrimination under Labor Code §132aapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant San Mateo County Transit District (defendant) seeks reconsideration of the August 16, 2022 Findings and Award (F&A), wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as a bus operator on September 11, 2008, sustained industrial injury to her back, right knee and psyche. The WCJ determined that the correct date of commencement of permanent total disability benefits was June 13, 2009, the day following the last payment of temporary total disability. The WCJ further determined that defendant's failure to timely pay accrued benefits triggered the statutory increase of Labor Code section 4650(d), and warranted the imposition of penalties for unreasonable delay pursuant to Labor Code section 5814.1 The WCJ also awarded attorney fees pursuant to section 5814.5 and statutory interest.
The Board found that permanent total disability benefits must commence retroactive to the last date of temporary disability (June 12, 2009) regardless of the date the applicant was declared permanent and stationary, based on Labor Code section 4650 and the Brower decision. The defendant's delay in payment triggered statutory increases, penalties, interest, and attorney fees, which were affirmed except for an amendment to the commutation method of attorney fees.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ11914002 · 2022-04-22 · San Francisco District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.5The WCJ issued the F&A on October 5, 2021, finding that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) on October 17, 2018. The F&A awarded temporary disability from October 25, 2018 through October 22, 2020, less reimbursement to the EDD for October 25, 2018 through October 23, 2019, less attorney fees. (F&A, Findings of Fact No. 4; Award, p.2.) In her Opinion on Decision, the WCJ reviewed the relevant medical record, including the unrebutted opinions of AME Dr. Campbell and treating physicians Dr. Barber and Dr. Smolins. Based on these reports and the aggregate medical record, the WCJ found applicant to be temporarily totally disabled from October 18, 2018 through February, 19, 2021, but also noted the limitations of Labor Code section 4656(c)(2) of TTD benefits to 104 weeks.1 The period of compensable TTD was thus fixed as October 25, 2018 through October 22, 2020, less overlapping periods of EDD payments, less attorney fees. (F&A, Opinion on Decision, at pp.8-9.)
The WCJ found applicant entitled to temporary disability indemnity benefits from October 25, 2018 to October 22, 2020, limited to 104 weeks under Labor Code section 4656(c)(2), based on substantial medical evidence including unrebutted AME and treating physician reports.
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ12369987 · 2021-08-16 · San Francisco District OfficeTemporary disabilityremanded
Determinative passage · p.3In this case, we are granting reconsideration to explicitly defer the issue of applicant's entitlement to temporary disability indemnity where the WCJ did not make a finding of fact regarding whether she was entitled to temporary disability. Although it could be argued that the WCJ impliedly determined that applicant was not entitled to temporary disability during that time period based on the discussion in the Opinion on Decision, the Opinion on Decision cannot substitute for an explicit Finding of Fact.
The Board found that the WCJ did not make an explicit finding of fact regarding temporary disability entitlement for the period November 7, 2019 through July 17, 2020, and therefore deferred the issue for further development of the medical record and adjudication.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ11267842 · 2021-03-05 · San Francisco District OfficeTemporary disabilitydeferred
Determinative passage · p.5Accordingly, we grant reconsideration and affirm the F&A except that we amend the F&A to defer the issues of: the period of applicant's temporary disability (Finding of Fact 4); applicant's entitlement to Labor Code section 4850 benefits (Finding of Fact 5); the lien of the California Association of Professional Firefighters (Finding of Fact 6); and the amount of attorney fees owed to applicant's counsel, based on the award of temporary disability indemnity and Labor Code section 4850 benefits (Finding of Fact 7). Based thereon we amend the Award and return the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
The WCJ and WCAB found no substantial evidence supporting the temporary total disability period from May 16, 2018, through July 16, 2019, and deferred the issue for further medical clarification.
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ18778938 · 2024-11-14 · San Francisco District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155]; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133].) The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Also, the petitioner must demonstrate that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a).) Here, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if the matter ultimately proceeds to a final decision adverse to petitioner.
The Appeals Board found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if the matter proceeds to a final decision adverse to petitioner.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ6831983 · 2023-06-16 · San Francisco District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We have received defendant's Answer. We have considered the allegations of applicant's Petition for Reconsideration and the Answer. We observe that on April 7, 2023, defendant filed a Petition for Writ of Review pursuant to Labor Code section 5950 with the California Court of Appeal, in the First Appellate District. Among the issues raised in defendant's petition was the timeliness of its petition for writ of review, based on defendant's allegation of incomplete service of our December 14, 2022 O&O. (Defendant's Petition for Writ of Review, dated April 7, 2023, at p. 19.) We defer to the Court of Appeal as to whether defendant's Petition for Writ of Review was timely. Based on our review of the record, applicant's Petition for Reconsideration has been rendered moot by the April 7, 2023 Petition for Writ of Review filed by defendant, and we will dismiss the petition accordingly.
The petition for reconsideration was dismissed as moot because the defendant filed a Petition for Writ of Review with the Court of Appeal, which superseded the reconsideration petition.
Official decision · page 1 →

Also recorded as

The same claims administrator is printed several ways across the decisions, and all of them were counted as one. This is every spelling behind the figures above.

THE CITIES GROUP
The Cities Group

Is this your company and something here is wrong? Tell us and we will fix it. Every figure on this page is a count of released decisions this claims administrator is named in, and the decisions themselves are listed above with the passage each turned on.

Also on this

Private workspace

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

Paste the dispute. The extractor builds the factors, the search finds the decisions the same facts won, and the matter stays saved. Free account.

Start a matter Search without an account →

The Cities Group

Decisions

Years

2021–2025

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

5 for the applicant

3 for the defense

2 returned for more record

Decisions

Newest decisions this claims administrator is named in, each with the passage the panel turned on and a link to the official PDF.

ADJ18355035 · 2025-09-16 · San Francisco District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

Determinative passage · p.9Gordon does note the contribution of the ongoing use of the hand for nearly five years as a police officer and general use. (Defendant's Exhibit B at 15: 23 § 16:4.) As noted by the WCJ, his testimony and reporting is contradictory at moments, but Dr. Gordon still concludes that the current condition is the natural progression of the treatment for the original injury. As a result, the WCJ found the reporting not substantial. We too agree that the report is not substantial. This results in a lack of substantial medical evidence of causation for the current symptoms, which must be addressed before any findings can be made.

The WCAB found that the AME's report was not substantial evidence to support a finding of cumulative trauma injury, as it was contradictory and did not clearly establish causation for a new injury. The matter was remanded for further development of the record.

Official decision · page 9 →

ADJ12075922 · 2025-09-12 · San Francisco District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Award (F&A) issued by the workers compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on June 13, 2025, wherein the WCJ found, in relevant part, that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to his left knee, right knee, lower back, and left hip resulting in an award of 69% permanent disability based on the medical reporting agreed medical evaluator (AME) Dr. Peter Mandell, M.D. The WCJ also found that defendant unreasonably delayed or refused payment of partial permanent and temporary disability indemnity compensation and issued two penalties for defendant's unreasonable delay of payment of compensation pursuant to Labor Code1 section 5814.

The WCJ's finding of 69% permanent disability based on Dr. Mandell's AME reports was upheld as supported by substantial evidence, and penalties were affirmed for defendant's unreasonable delay in payment of temporary and permanent disability indemnity.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ18656564 · 2024-12-02 · Oakland District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award (F&A) issued on August 30, 2024, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found as relevant that (1) while employed as a bus driver on June 14, 2023, applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to his right shoulder; and (2) the injury caused an additional period of temporary disability beginning on April 19, 2024 and continuing indefinitely thereafter.

The WCJ's finding of temporary disability benefits entitlement from April 18, 2024 and continuing indefinitely was supported by credible applicant testimony and medical evidence, despite defendant's contention that Dr. Ting's opinion of permanent and stationary status was dispositive. The Appeals Board found Dr. Ting's opinion was based on inadequate medical history and unsupported by other medical reports, and applicant's testimony that he never declined surgery was credible and unrebutted.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ11489504 · 2024-08-05 · Oakland District OfficeTemporary disabilitymixed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award (F&A) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on May 20, 2024, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant sustained injury to his neck, low back, left shoulder, and psyche while employed by defendant as a bus operator during the period up through April 4, 2018; that applicant was permanent and stationary on July 23, 2020; that applicant is entitled to temporary disability for the period of July 29, 2019, to July 23, 2020; and that:

The WCAB found applicant entitled to temporary disability indemnity for the period July 29, 2019 to July 23, 2020, rejecting defendant's claim for credit for overpayment for certain periods because the retirement was compelled by industrial injury and not voluntary.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ12075922 · 2023-09-08 · San Francisco District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.7Based on my analysis of the entire record, I find that applicant has met his burden of proof with respect to TTD starting March 11, 2019. In its brief, defendant makes much of the fact that applicant went out for unrelated reasons in September 2018 and began seeking treatment for the knee after exhausting his leave. However, this timeline-and the connotation of ulterior motives it carries- does not outweigh the entirety of the medical evidence in the case, according to which applicant became incapable of performing his job in March 2019, specifically as a result of symptoms in the left knee. There is contemporaneous reporting from Dr. Solomon in exhibit 16, as well as reports from both QMEs in exhibits 13 and 14-all three opined that applicant's left knee symptoms were disabling absent surgical intervention.

The evidence, including QME reports, treatment records, and credible testimony, supported the finding that applicant was totally temporarily disabled from March 11, 2019, due to his industrial left knee injury, entitling him to TTD indemnity.

Official decision · page 7 →

ADJ11489504 · 2023-08-04 · Oakland District OfficePermanent disability ratingmixed

Determinative passage · p.4DISCUSSION The Second District Court of Appeals has explained that:

The WCAB found that temporary disability and permanent disability indemnity serve different purposes and that crediting temporary disability overpayment against permanent disability can be disruptive. The WCAB deferred the issue of credit for temporary disability overpayment due to lack of findings on permanent and stationary date and psychiatric injury issues, but affirmed a 22% permanent disability rating based on QME opinion.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ6831983 · 2022-12-14 · San Francisco District OfficeDiscrimination under Labor Code §132aapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant San Mateo County Transit District (defendant) seeks reconsideration of the August 16, 2022 Findings and Award (F&A), wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as a bus operator on September 11, 2008, sustained industrial injury to her back, right knee and psyche. The WCJ determined that the correct date of commencement of permanent total disability benefits was June 13, 2009, the day following the last payment of temporary total disability. The WCJ further determined that defendant's failure to timely pay accrued benefits triggered the statutory increase of Labor Code section 4650(d), and warranted the imposition of penalties for unreasonable delay pursuant to Labor Code section 5814.1 The WCJ also awarded attorney fees pursuant to section 5814.5 and statutory interest.

The Board found that permanent total disability benefits must commence retroactive to the last date of temporary disability (June 12, 2009) regardless of the date the applicant was declared permanent and stationary, based on Labor Code section 4650 and the Brower decision. The defendant's delay in payment triggered statutory increases, penalties, interest, and attorney fees, which were affirmed except for an amendment to the commutation method of attorney fees.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ11914002 · 2022-04-22 · San Francisco District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.5The WCJ issued the F&A on October 5, 2021, finding that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) on October 17, 2018. The F&A awarded temporary disability from October 25, 2018 through October 22, 2020, less reimbursement to the EDD for October 25, 2018 through October 23, 2019, less attorney fees. (F&A, Findings of Fact No. 4; Award, p.2.) In her Opinion on Decision, the WCJ reviewed the relevant medical record, including the unrebutted opinions of AME Dr. Campbell and treating physicians Dr. Barber and Dr. Smolins. Based on these reports and the aggregate medical record, the WCJ found applicant to be temporarily totally disabled from October 18, 2018 through February, 19, 2021, but also noted the limitations of Labor Code section 4656(c)(2) of TTD benefits to 104 weeks.1 The period of compensable TTD was thus fixed as October 25, 2018 through October 22, 2020, less overlapping periods of EDD payments, less attorney fees. (F&A, Opinion on Decision, at pp.8-9.)

The WCJ found applicant entitled to temporary disability indemnity benefits from October 25, 2018 to October 22, 2020, limited to 104 weeks under Labor Code section 4656(c)(2), based on substantial medical evidence including unrebutted AME and treating physician reports.

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ12369987 · 2021-08-16 · San Francisco District OfficeTemporary disabilityremanded

Determinative passage · p.3In this case, we are granting reconsideration to explicitly defer the issue of applicant's entitlement to temporary disability indemnity where the WCJ did not make a finding of fact regarding whether she was entitled to temporary disability. Although it could be argued that the WCJ impliedly determined that applicant was not entitled to temporary disability during that time period based on the discussion in the Opinion on Decision, the Opinion on Decision cannot substitute for an explicit Finding of Fact.

The Board found that the WCJ did not make an explicit finding of fact regarding temporary disability entitlement for the period November 7, 2019 through July 17, 2020, and therefore deferred the issue for further development of the medical record and adjudication.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ11267842 · 2021-03-05 · San Francisco District OfficeTemporary disabilitydeferred

Determinative passage · p.5Accordingly, we grant reconsideration and affirm the F&A except that we amend the F&A to defer the issues of: the period of applicant's temporary disability (Finding of Fact 4); applicant's entitlement to Labor Code section 4850 benefits (Finding of Fact 5); the lien of the California Association of Professional Firefighters (Finding of Fact 6); and the amount of attorney fees owed to applicant's counsel, based on the award of temporary disability indemnity and Labor Code section 4850 benefits (Finding of Fact 7). Based thereon we amend the Award and return the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The WCJ and WCAB found no substantial evidence supporting the temporary total disability period from May 16, 2018, through July 16, 2019, and deferred the issue for further medical clarification.

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ18778938 · 2024-11-14 · San Francisco District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155]; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133].) The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Also, the petitioner must demonstrate that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a).) Here, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if the matter ultimately proceeds to a final decision adverse to petitioner.

The Appeals Board found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if the matter proceeds to a final decision adverse to petitioner.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ6831983 · 2023-06-16 · San Francisco District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1We have received defendant's Answer. We have considered the allegations of applicant's Petition for Reconsideration and the Answer. We observe that on April 7, 2023, defendant filed a Petition for Writ of Review pursuant to Labor Code section 5950 with the California Court of Appeal, in the First Appellate District. Among the issues raised in defendant's petition was the timeliness of its petition for writ of review, based on defendant's allegation of incomplete service of our December 14, 2022 O&O. (Defendant's Petition for Writ of Review, dated April 7, 2023, at p. 19.) We defer to the Court of Appeal as to whether defendant's Petition for Writ of Review was timely. Based on our review of the record, applicant's Petition for Reconsideration has been rendered moot by the April 7, 2023 Petition for Writ of Review filed by defendant, and we will dismiss the petition accordingly.

The petition for reconsideration was dismissed as moot because the defendant filed a Petition for Writ of Review with the Court of Appeal, which superseded the reconsideration petition.

Official decision · page 1 →