86 Cal.App.5th 1004
Cal. Ct. App.2022Background
- Petitioner M.G. was detained under Welfare & Institutions Code §5250 for a 14‑day intensive treatment period and sought prompt judicial review under §5276.
- M.G. (hearing impaired) filed a habeas petition on August 26 requesting an evidentiary hearing; she required both an ASL interpreter and a certified deaf interpreter (relay interpreting).
- The superior court set the hearing within two judicial days but, when neither interpreter was available at the hearing date, continued it two additional days (to Sept. 1), concluding due process required interpreters and that unavailability was good cause.
- M.G. petitioned the Court of Appeal for a writ ordering release; after the court issued an order to show cause, counsel notified the court M.G. had been released.
- The Court of Appeal concluded §5276 unambiguously requires the superior court either to hold an evidentiary hearing within two judicial days of the petition or to release the detainee; no good‑cause continuance beyond that deadline is authorized.
- Because M.G. had already been released, the appellate court denied the petition as moot but issued the opinion to resolve the statutory question that would otherwise evade review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Welf. & Inst. Code §5276 requires the court to hold an evidentiary hearing within two judicial days or permits a continuance for good cause | M.G.: §5276 is mandatory—court must hold the hearing within two judicial days or release the detainee | Facility: setting a hearing date within two judicial days (even if it actually occurs later) or good‑cause delay satisfies the statute | Court: §5276 is unambiguous and mandatory; no good‑cause continuance beyond two judicial days is permitted; failure to hold the hearing requires release |
| Whether continuing the hearing beyond the statutory deadline exceeded the court’s jurisdiction and the specified consequence should apply | M.G.: continuing beyond the deadline exceeded jurisdiction and required release | Facility: practical scheduling and due process concerns justified the continuance | Court: continuation exceeded jurisdiction under §5276; statutory consequence (release) applies when no hearing held within two judicial days |
Key Cases Cited
- MacIsaac v. Waste Management Collection & Recycling, Inc., 134 Cal.App.4th 1076 (2005) (plain statutory language controls interpretation)
- Edward W. v. Lamkins, 99 Cal.App.4th 516 (2002) (statutory provisions protecting liberty construed strictly)
- In re Webb, 7 Cal.5th 270 (2019) (courts may resolve technically moot questions that will consistently evade review)
- California School Employees Ass’n v. Governing Board, 8 Cal.4th 333 (1994) (avoid interpretations that frustrate statutory purpose)
- Conservatorship of Jose B., 50 Cal.App.5th 963 (2020) (assess whether mandatory construction promotes statutory objectives)
- Tran v. County of Los Angeles, 74 Cal.App.5th 154 (2022) (statutes specifying consequences indicate mandatory requirements)