Last week, the Court of Appeal (First Appellate District, Division Four) heard oral argument on whether plaintiff/appellant Californians for Disability Rights should be permitted to substitute an affected party at the appellate level, rather than at the trial court level, to meet Prop. 64's standing requirements. Californians for Disability Rights v. Mervyn's, no. A106199. Yesterday, the court issued this order:
Appellant's request to grant leave to move for substitution of plaintiff in this court, or in the alternative for an order vacating the judgment and remanding the case to the trial court with leave to permit amendment, is denied. The appeal is dismissed for lack of standing.
You may recall that when Prop. 64 passed, this appeal was already pending. The Court of Appeal's original opinion in Mervyn's came after the defendant moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing that Prop. 64 had stripped away the plaintiff/appellant's standing. It seems that the motion to dismiss has now, at long last, been granted. My earlier coverage of the post-remand proceedings in Mervyn's is here and here.