Local Rules

Published pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 10.1030
[Amended effective April 16, 2018]
 

Rule 1. MEDIATION

(a) [Application of rule] This rule is adopted pursuant to rule 8.248, California Rules of Court, and shall apply to all civil appeals filed in the Sixth District Court of Appeal.

(b) [Purpose of Mediation Program] To aid the expeditious and just resolution of civil appeals, the Court of Appeal for the Sixth District has established a mediation Program (“Program”). The Program shall be administered by the Administrative Presiding Justice or a designated Supervising Justice, and their designated staff.

(c) [Scope of Mediation Program] At the court’s discretion, any civil appeal may be placed in the Program upon the agreement of all parties to the appeal. The Court may, at its discretion, remove an appeal from the Program.

(d) [Mediators]

1. The court shall maintain a list of attorneys who have developed expertise in specified areas of law, are generally respected in the legal community, and are willing to mediate cases at this court. These attorneys shall be designated as mediators and preside over mediations conducted within the scope of the Program.
2. A justice or assigned justice of this court may, at the court’s discretion, be designated as a mediator and preside over a mediation. A justice or assigned justice who participates in a mediation that does not result in complete settlement shall not thereafter participate in any way in the consideration or disposition of the case on its merits.
3. A justice or assigned justice of the court will not be disqualified to participate in the consideration or disposition of a case on its merits because he or she has ruled on a request for a mediation, ordered that a mediation be held, signed orders granting relief from default for an act required under this rule, extended or shortened any time period specified in this rule, or otherwise signed an order concerning a procedural aspect of the mediation process.

(e) [General Mediation Program Procedure]

1. All parties in a civil appeal shall file a Mediation Statement Form within 15 days of the date the Clerk of this court sends notice that the court has received the notice of appeal.  Each party shall also serve a copy of their completed Mediation Statement Form on all other parties.
2. The Mediation Statement Form shall be transmitted by the Clerk to the Program and shall not be entered into the court file.
3. Within 15 days of receipt of the Mediation Statement Forms, the court shall notify the parties when a case is selected for mediation and furnish the name, address and telephone number of the mediator selected for the mediation. The court shall provide three possible dates for mediation.
4. The parties shall meet and confer to agree on the date of mediation, and inform the court within 5 days of the date selected for mediation. The court will issue written notice of the date and time of the mediation. The mediator, with the approval of the Court, may, for good cause, postpone or continue a mediation session to a date certain.
5. The Court may replace a selected mediator upon written request by a party supported by a showing of good cause or upon request of the mediator.
6. Immediately upon acceptance of a case into the Program, all further proceedings, including the filing of briefs, shall be suspended for 90 days. However, this rule shall not suspend preparation of the appellate record unless a specific order is issued directing suspension of record preparation. Upon the expiration of the stay, the appeal shall be reinstated to active status on the court’s docket. Any request for further stay shall be granted only upon written application to the court and only upon a showing of good cause.
7. Mediation services shall be furnished by the Court without fee to the parties for up to a total of 4 hours. Any further mediation services shall be at the discretion of the mediator, on such terms as the mediator and the parties may agree upon, and consistent with the provisions of this rule.

(f) [Mediation Hearing and Sanctions]

1. All parties and their counsel of record must attend all mediation sessions in person with full settlement authority. If the party is not an individual, then a party representative with full authority to settle all appeals and cross-appeals must attend all mediation sessions in person, in addition to counsel. If a party has potential insurance coverage applicable to any of the issues in dispute, a representative of each insurance carrier whose policy may apply must also attend all mediation sessions in person, with full settlement authority. Any exception to this requirement must be approved in writing by the Court. Failure to attend may result in the imposition of sanctions against any party or counsel, up to and including immediate termination from the Program or dismissal of the appeal.
2. The mediator may invite parties to the action who are not parties to the appeal, or any person who has an interest in the action, to attend the mediation if it appears to the mediator that their presence may facilitate settlement of the case. Any party to the appeal may serve and file a written request for the attendance of such a party or person at least 15 days before the mediation.
3. Counsel shall confer with their clients in advance and be thoroughly familiar with the case and prepared to present their contentions in detail.
4. The presiding justice, a justice designated by the presiding justice, or the mediator may excuse a client's personal attendance upon request and a showing that hardship or unusual circumstances make the client's attendance impossible or impractical. If personal attendance is excused, counsel either shall have obtained full authority to agree to a settlement that binds the client or the client shall be available for consultation by telephone.
5. The mediator may require parties or their counsel to furnish information, documents, records or other items specified by the mediator.

(g) [Post Mediation Procedure]

1. No later than 10 days after completion of mediation, the mediator shall submit to the Court a Mediation Attendance Form, listing all participants in the mediation, and a brief summary of the procedural outcome of the mediation.
2. Each party and their counsel shall separately complete and submit to the Court evaluations of the mediation and the mediator on a form provided by the Court.
3. The parties and their counsel shall promptly take the steps necessary to implement the agreements reached in mediation. An appellant who has settled must immediately serve and file a notice of settlement in the Court of Appeal and, thereafter, must seek abandonment or dismissal of the appeal as provided in the California Rules of Court. The notice of settlement shall specify the allocation of costs on appeal and state whether the remittitur is to issue immediately.
4. Upon receiving notification that no agreement was reached at mediation, this court will immediately vacate the stay and reinstate the appeal to active status on the court’s docket.
    

(h) [Confidentiality] Except as otherwise required by law, information disclosed to the mediator, the parties, counsel, or any other participant in the mediation, shall be confidential and shall not be disclosed to anyone not participating in the mediation Program.

(i) [Ethical Standards] Mediators shall adhere to the Rules of Conduct for Mediators in Court-Connected Mediation Programs for Civil Cases set forth in the California Rules of Court.

(j) [Appellate Process] Parties and counsel shall comply with all rules applicable to processing appeals while concurrently participating in the mediation Program.

(k) [Sanctions] Monetary sanctions may be imposed by the Administrative Presiding Justice or Supervising Justice for failure to comply with these rules.

Rule 1 reinstated effective November 13, 2013, suspended effective April 2, 2013, amended effective June 11, 2010; April 16, 2018; adopted effective February 5, 2010; former Rule 1 repealed effective March 2, 2007.

Published pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 10.1030
Effective January 19, 2016
[Amended effective September 20, 2021]
 

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.72, the Court of Appeal for the Sixth Appellate District (court) adopts the following requirements for electronic filing in this district.
 

1. Registration.
   1. Obligation to Register.  The court’s electronic filing system (EFS) is operated by ImageSoft, Inc. (ImageSoft), and may be accessed via the TrueFiling portal (TrueFiling).  In order to access TrueFiling, each attorney of record in any proceeding pending in this court is obligated to become an EFS user and obtain a username and password.  Self-represented litigants must register if they wish to file electronically.  Attorneys and self-represented litigants may register at https://tf3.truefiling.com/register.
   2. Obligation to Keep Account Information Current.  Registered users are required to keep their e-mail addresses current and must update their e-mail addresses online via the TrueFiling web site.  Updating TrueFiling does not relieve the user of the notice of change requirements in California Rules of Court, rule 8.32, subdivision (b).

       

2. Format.  The formatting requirements enumerated in California Rules of Court, rule 8.74 (a)-(d) are incorporated herein by reference and shall apply to all documents electronically filed in the Sixth District.  For more information and examples, you can refer to the California Courts of Appeal FAQs.

    

3. Record on Appeal and Writ Proceedings.
   1. Appendix.  Parties must submit any appendix filed pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.124 in electronic format.  Each part of the appendix shall comply with the format, pagination and bookmark requirements enumerated in subparagraph (b) of this rule.  If submitted in multiple parts, the cover of each part of the record submitted in any appendix or exhibit volume shall clearly state the volume and page numbers included within that part, and include an index of contents.
   2. Administrative Record.  In addition to any administrative record provided by the trial court pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.123, the party or parties seeking review of an administrative determination must submit a copy of the administrative record as an electronic text-searchable PDF.  An administrative record may be delivered to the court on CD, DVD, or flash drive.
   3. Reporter’s Transcript.  Any party who orders a reporter’s transcript of proceedings pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.130, which is provided in paper format, must also request a copy of the transcript in electronic format, as provided in Code of Civil Procedure section 271, and must submit an electronic copy to the court.
   4. Writ Proceedings.  All documents and exhibits submitted in writ proceedings must be submitted in electronic format and must comply with the requirements enumerated in subparagraph (b) of this rule.
   5. Transmissions by the Superior Court.  The court authorizes and encourages the superior courts within the Sixth Appellate District to engage in the electronic service and electronic filing of documents, including, but not limited to, the clerk’s transcript and reporter’s transcripts.  If a superior court transmits an electronic document to the court, it shall also make the electronic document available to the parties.  If a superior court transmits electronic documents to the court in lieu of paper, the court will accept electronic documents complying with the California Rules of Court and this local rule.

       

4. Electronic Version Deemed Original Record.  The court may scan any paper document into an electronic format, in which case the electronic document will be deemed the original for purposes of the court record.  The original electronic record will be maintained by the court in compliance with all statutory requirements, and the court may elect to destroy the paper documents.

    

5. Filing Deadlines.  Consistent with California Rules of Court, rules 8.71(f)(2) and 8.77, filing documents electronically does not alter any filing deadlines.  A document that is received electronically by the court after 11:59 p.m. is deemed to have been received on the next court day.  In order to be timely filed on the day they are due, all electronic transmissions of documents must be completed prior to midnight.  Although EFS permits parties to submit documents electronically 24 hours a day, users should be aware that telephone or online assistance may not be available outside of normal court business hours.  

    

6. Motion to Accept Filing as Timely Following TrueFiling Technical Failure.  If a filer fails to meet a filing deadline imposed by court order, rule, or law because of a failure of the EFS, the filer may file a paper or electronic document as soon thereafter as practicable and accompany the filing with a motion to accept the document as timely filed pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.77(d).

    

7. Service.  An attorney’s registration with TrueFiling to participate in the EFS constitutes consent to service or delivery of all documents by any other party in a case through the system.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.78.)  Orders or other documents generated by the court will be served only through the EFS or by e-mailed notification.  Only those exempted from the EFS pursuant to subparagraph (j) will receive manual service or notification by other means.

    

8. Signatures.  The signature requirements enumerated in California Rules of Court, rule 8.75 are incorporated herein by reference and shall apply to all documents electronically filed in the Sixth District.

    

9. Filing Fees.  ImageSoft is a private vendor under contract with the court.  ImageSoft will assess EFS fees for each filing in accordance with the schedule posted on the TrueFiling web site, as approved by the court.  EFS fees will be considered recoverable costs under California Rules of Court, rule 8.278(d)(1)(D).  ImageSoft is designated as the court’s agent for collection of court-imposed fees where required for any filing, and any associated credit card or bank charges or convenience fees.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.76; Gov. Code, § 6159.)
   If a party with a fee waiver chooses to file documents electronically, that party is exempt from the fees and costs associated with electronic filing.  The persons and entities identified in Government Code section 6103 are also exempt from the fees and costs associated with the EFS.

    

10. Exemptions.
    1. Self-represented parties are exempt from mandatory electronic filing. Self-represented parties who opt to register for electronic filing must comply with this rule and the requirements of TrueFiling.
    2. When it is not feasible for a party to convert a document to electronic form by scanning, imaging, or other means, the document may be filed in paper form, with a declaration setting forth the reasons why electronic filing was not feasible.  The paper documents shall be filed and served upon the parties in accordance with all statutory requirements and the California Rules of Court applicable to paper documents.
    3. If electronic filing and/or service causes undue hardship or significant prejudice to any party, the party may file a motion for an exemption from the requirements of this rule.  (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.54(a)(1) & (2).)  Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.71(d), the court will grant relief from some or all of these requirements on a satisfactory showing of undue hardship or significant prejudice.

        

11. Rejection of Electronic Filing for Noncompliance.  The court will reject an electronic filing if it does not comply with the requirements of this rule pursuant California Rules of Court, rule 8.77(b).

     

12. Sanctions for Noncompliance.  Failure of counsel to timely register, and failure of any registered user to comply with EFS filing requirements, unless exempted, may be subject to sanctions imposed by the court.

     

13. Posting and Publication.  The Clerk of the Court is directed to post a copy of this rule on the court’s web site pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.72(a), and to submit a copy to the Reporter of Decisions for publication pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 10.1030(a).
     

Adopted effective January 16, 2016; Amended effective April 16, 2018; Amended effective September 20, 2021.

The Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, repealed its Local Rule of Court, Rule 3.  Effective June 2, 2025, there will no longer be a presumption that counsel for a defendant in a felony appeal has requested a paper copy of the reporter’s transcript.

(Repealed June 2, 2025)

Published pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 10.1030 
[Effective December 28, 2020]

Local Rule 4 – Establishing Appellate Jurisdiction, Civil Case Information Statement, Required Attachments
 

1. An appellant filing a completed Civil Case Information Statement (Form APP-004) in this District pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.100 (g), must attach the following documents:

    

   1. A copy of the judgment or order being appealed, including:
      1. A judgment of dismissal, if the appeal challenges a judgment entered after:
         1. an order granting summary judgment, or
         2. an order sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend, or
         3. an order granting judgment on the pleadings;
      2. If appealing an order made after judgment (Code of Civ. Proc. §904.1, subd. (a)(2)), a copy of the final judgment or order of dismissal that predated the order being appealed (see Code Civ. Proc., §§ 577, 581d);

          

   2. A copy of the proof of service from the clerk of the superior court or any party’s notice of entry of the order or judgment being appealed; or, if neither the clerk of the superior court nor any party served a proof of service or notice of entry, a statement that no such document exists;

       

   3. If claiming an extension of time to file the appeal pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.108 (b), (c), (d) or (e), a copy of the trial court’s order granting or denying the applicable motion;

       

   4. The proof of service or notice of entry of any order listed in (3); or, if neither the clerk of the superior court nor any party served a proof of service or notice of entry, a statement that no such document exists;

       

   5. Any additional documents that may be necessary to establish appellate jurisdiction pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1 and California Rules of Court, rules 8.104 and 8.108.

       

2. If appellant fails to comply with this rule, or if the court requires additional documents to verify appellate jurisdiction, the court will notify the appellant in writing of any omission or additional request. If any requested document is unavailable or does not exist, appellant shall so notify the court in writing with a statement why the document cannot be provided. If appellant fails to comply with the court’s request within the specified time, the court may, on its own motion or upon motion of any party, issue an order to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which has created a public emergency for purposes of rule 8.66, subdivision (a), there is an ongoing threat to the orderly operations of the six district Courts of Appeal. Upon the joint request of all six Administrative Presiding Justices, pursuant to rule 8.66, subdivision (c), it is ordered that the Court of Appeal for each appellate district is authorized to do the following: • Issue an order renewing the current emergency order extending by no more than 30 days the time periods specified by the California Rules of Court. Second extensions of time are limited to acts and events that occur prior to the filing of a decision by the Court of Appeal. This order is to be in effect for proceedings in which the time period in the California Rules of Court would occur between the day in April 2020 that is the last day of the court’s current implementation order, and through and including May 18, 2020.

Date: April 15, 2020

CANTIL-SAKAUYE, C.J.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which has created a public emergency for purposes of rule 8.66, subdivision (a), there is an ongoing threat to the orderly operations of the six district Courts of Appeal. Upon the request of each Administrative Presiding Justice over the course of several days in March 2020, this Court issued emergency orders under rule 8.66 authorizing each court to extend by no more than 30 days the time in which to do any act required or permitted under the California Rules of Court. Pursuant to that authorization, each district Court of Appeal issued an implementation order extending time. On April 4, 2020, the Judicial Council amended rule 8.66 to better assist the courts in continuing to operate during a public emergency. Upon the joint request of all six Administrative Presiding Justices, it is ordered that the Court of Appeal for each appellate district is authorized to do the following: • Issue an order applying the provisions of amended rule 8.66 retroactively to the starting date of the court’s current implementation order. This order is to be in effect for proceedings in which the time period in the California Rules of Court would occur between the day in March 2020 that is the first day of the court’s current implementation order, and the day in April 2020 that is the last day of the court’s current implementation order.

Date: April 9, 2020

CANTIL-SAKAUYE, C.J.

Pursuant to rule 8.66 of the California Rules of Court, due the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has created a public emergency for purposes of rule 8.66, subdivision (a), there is an immediate threat to the orderly operations of the Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District. Upon the request of Administrative Presiding Justice Mary J. Greenwood, it is therefore ordered that the Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, is authorized to do the following: • Issue an order extending by no more than 30 additional days the time to do any act required or permitted under the California Rules of Court. This order applies to proceedings in which the deadline for any action in the California Rules of Court would occur between March 18, 2020, and April 17, 2020. The court must notify the Judicial Council if the circumstances necessitating this order are resolved prior to April 17, 2020.

Date: March 18, 2020

CANTIL-SAKAUYE, C.J.

BY THE COURT:

The Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, wishes to inform counsel of the following policy: As an exception to California Rules of Court, rule 8.256(c)(3), the Court will grant leave for counsel to split oral argument time to permit less experienced attorneys (seven years or less as a practicing attorney) the opportunity to present oral argument. The Court recognizes that less experienced attorneys often have fewer opportunities to gain valuable appellate advocacy experience and believes that permitting these attorneys to participate in oral argument benefits both their development and the legal profession as a whole. This policy is entirely optional. The Court is not requiring counsel to permit less experienced attorneys to argue, but is simply communicating its willingness to accommodate such arrangements upon request. If counsel wishes to split oral argument time with a less experienced attorney, please indicate this intention when submitting your oral argument request form by: 1. Noting "Split Argument Requested" at the top of the form 2. Listing both attorneys who will be presenting argument 3. Indicating the approximate division of the requested time The Court appreciates counsel's consideration of this opportunity to mentor the next generation of appellate advocates.

Dated: August 1, 2025

GREENWOOD, A.P.J.

BY THE COURT:

Miscellaneous Order No. 23-001, dated May 10, 2023, setting forth the court’s COVID-19 oral argument protocols, is hereby vacated. Oral argument in the Sixth District is currently being conducted in person. A party appearing for oral argument may choose to appear in person or remotely via videoconferencing through ZoomGov. A party who cannot attend in-person can arrange for remote participation via videoconferencing through ZoomGov. Parties opting for remote participation will receive detailed information on how to participate, ensuring that the proceedings are conducted smoothly and efficiently. The courtroom will be open to the public and media on a first-come, first-served basis. The public will continue to have access to arguments via live streaming on the court’s website, https://www.courts.ca.gov/11670.htm. Recordings of oral arguments will continue to be archived for subsequent viewing online.

Dated: May 27, 2025

GREENWOOD, A.P.J.

BY THE COURT:

Miscellaneous Order No. 22-001, dated August 26, 2022, setting forth the court’s COVID-19 oral argument protocols, is hereby vacated. Oral argument in the Sixth District is currently being conducted in-person. Counsel appearing for oral argument may choose to appear in person, or remotely via videoconferencing through BlueJeans. Commencing with the June 2023 oral argument calendar, and continuing unless otherwise ordered by the court, the courtroom will be open to the public and media on a first come, first served basis. The public will continue to have access to arguments via live streaming on the court’s website, https://www.courts.ca.gov/11670.htm. Recordings of oral arguments will continue to be archived for subsequent viewing online. Regardless of vaccination status, all counsel and all members of the public who enter the courtroom are strongly encouraged to wear well-fitted face coverings. Counsel may, and are encouraged to, remove their masks when presenting argument. No person shall enter the courtroom if that person (a) has tested positive for COVID-19 within the previous five days; (b) is ill and currently awaiting the results of a COVID-19 test; (c) has had a fever within the prior 24 hours; or (d) has had symptoms consistent with COVID-19 that have persisted over the previous five days. Any counsel who initially planned to appear in person for oral argument but who becomes unable to do so for extraordinary cause related to medical reasons (including a positive COVID-19 test in advance of oral argument) must notify opposing counsel and the clerk of the court immediately regarding, and to arrange for, remote participation via videoconferencing through BlueJeans. The court retains discretion to deny the request, grant it and allow for remote participation, postpone oral argument if necessary, or take other action as may be appropriate.

Dated: May 10, 2023

GREENWOOD, A.P.J.

BY THE COURT:

Miscellaneous Order 21-001, dated September 8, 2021, is hereby vacated. Because California is moving from the pandemic phase to a new endemic phase of COVID-19, the Sixth District Court of Appeal is adopting a hybrid oral argument model. The option to appear in person for oral argument will resume for parties as of the November 2022 oral argument calendar. In addition to in person appearances, the parties may still elect to appear via videoconferencing. Court proceedings will be accessible to the public and press through online streaming only. Furthermore, public access to past recorded oral arguments will be available on the Court’s “Calendars” page.

Dated: August 26, 2022

GREENWOOD, A.P.J.

BY THE COURT:

Miscellaneous Order 20-002, dated April 10, 2020, is hereby vacated. Due to the public emergency created by the COVID-19 virus, oral argument at the Sixth District Court of Appeal will be conducted by video conferencing until further order of this court. Court proceedings will be open to the public and members of the press online via live webcast or viewing a video recording on the Court's "Calendars" page.

Dated: September 8, 2021

GREENWOOD, A.P.J.

BY THE COURT:

Miscellaneous Order 20-001, dated March 16, 2020 is hereby vacated. Due to the public emergency created by the COVID-19 virus, oral argument at the Sixth District Court of Appeal will be conducted by telephonic appearance until further order of this court. Court proceedings will be open to the public and members of the press telephonically.

Dated: April 10, 2020

GREENWOOD, A.P.J.

BY THE COURT:

In light of the health emergency due to the COVID-19 virus and in cooperation with the orders of the Director of the Santa Clara County Department of Public Health issued March 16, 2020, oral argument sessions in the Sixth District Court of Appeal are suspended. These adjustments will remain in place until, by further order, it is determined to be prudent to resume normal procedures.

Dated: March 16, 2020

GREENWOOD, A.P.J.

BY THE COURT:

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.256(c), oral argument will be limited to 15 minutes per side effective March 8, 2019. When requesting oral argument, a party may request additional time by specifying the amount of time needed and the issues to which additional argument will be addressed. The Court may, in its discretion, grant or reject the request for additional time.

Dated: March 18, 2019

GREENWOOD, A.P.J.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that effective November 13, 2017, any motion to augment the record in a criminal or civil appeal must be accompanied by a proposed order enumerating each item requested. Counsel shall use the form Order Re: Augmentation located on this Court’s website at http://www.courts.ca.gov/3001.htm Failure to comply with this order may result in the denial of the motion to augment.

Dated: September 6, 2017

RUSHING, A.P.J.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that effective February 26, 2014, any brief filed by counsel in a criminal appeal need not comply with California Rules of Court, Rule 8.47(c) in so far as it refers to material contained in a Probation Report that is a part of the record on appeal.

Dated February 26, 2014

RUSHING, A.P.J.

BY THE COURT:

On April 15, 2020, Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye, Chair of the Judicial Council, authorized this court to renew the emergency order that extends time periods specified by the California Rules of Court. Pursuant to that authorization, the Court orders as follows: All time periods specified by the California Rules of Court that occur during the time period between April 20, 2020, through and including May 18, 2020, are hereby extended for 30 days from the date of the specified event. No application for an extension of time shall be required. The extension will be granted irrespective of whether a party received an automatic extension pursuant to the initial emergency order. This extension applies to time periods pertaining to finality of a decision where finality is not immediate under the California Rules of Court, except that the time to file a petition for rehearing or a request for publication and the date of finality shall not, under any circumstances, be extended by more than a total of 30 days. The Court retains the discretion to disallow an extension of time, to order that an action be taken or an event occur within a specified time frame, or to vacate this order should conditions justifying this order abate. THIS ORDER IS EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY.

Date: April 16, 2020

GREENWOOD, A.P.J.

BY THE COURT:

On April 9, 2020, this Court submitted a request to the Chair of the Judicial Council for an order authorizing retroactive application of the provisions of amended rule 8.66 of the California Rules of Court. On April 9, 2020, Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye, Chair of the Judicial Council, granted the request and issued an order (Order) authorizing this Court to apply the provisions of amended rule 8.66 retroactively to the starting date of the Court’s current implementation order under former rule 8.66. Pursuant to the Order and rule 8.66, this Court hereby orders asfollows: All time periods specified by the California Rules of Court that occur during the time period between March 18, 2020, through and including April 17, 2020, are hereby extended for 30 days from the date of the specified event. No application for an extension of time shall be required. The Court retains the discretion to disallow an extension of time under appropriate circumstances. This extension applies to time periods pertaining to finality of a decision where finality is not immediate under the California Rules of Court. THIS ORDER IS EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY.

Date: April 9, 2020

GREENWOOD, A.P.J.

THE COURT:

On March 17, 2020, this Court submitted a request to the Chair of the Judicial Council for an emergency order under rule 8.66 of the California Rules of Court. On March 18, 2020 Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye, Chair of the Judicial Council, granted the request and issued an order authorizing this court to extend the time to do any act required or permitted under the California Rules of Court by 30 additional days (Order). Pursuant to the Order, and rule 8.66, this Court hereby orders as follows: The time to do any act required or permitted under the California Rules of Court is hereby extended by 30 additional days. No application for an extension shall be required. This order applies to proceedings in which the deadline for any action in the California Rules of Court occurs between March 18, 2020, through and including April 17, 2020. THIS ORDER IS EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY.

Date: March 18, 2020

GREENWOOD, A.P.J.

Effective immediately, the Sixth District Court of Appeal will no longer require compliance with California Rules of Court, rule 8.360 (a) for briefs filed Pursuant to In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835. Court-appointed counsel should now submit a Phoenix H. brief in letter format when court-appointed counsel find no arguable issue to be pursued on appeal. All letter briefs filed pursuant to In re Phoenix H. shall be electronically filed. All other procedures and requirements associated with Phoenix H. briefs shall remain unchanged.

Dated: May 10, 2012

RUSHING, A.P.J.