Parada

Trinidad Parada, doing business as Bud’s Auto Service, filed an action in the Small Claims Court of the Los Angeles Judicial District against Leon Gendreau to recover $432.50 alleged to be owing for repairs on Gendreau’s automobile.

The small claims court entered judgment for Gendreau on the grounds that Parada did not have a written authorization for the work. *768 That court was of the opinion that Business and Professions Code section 9884.9, subdivision (a), 1 required such written authorization.

Parada petitioned the Superior Court of Los Angeles County for a writ of mandate to direct the small claims court to enter judgment in his favor. The superior court denied the petition declaring that the case of Bennett v. Hayes, 53 Cal.App.3d 700 [ 125 Cal.Rptr. 825 ], appeared to “bar an action for the reasonable value of automotive repair services.” Parada appeals from the judgment denying the petition for mandate.

On May 28, 1975, Gendreau brought his 1966 Oldsmobile to Parada’s auto repair shop in San Pedro, California. Parada made a written estimate of $544.12 for repairs to be made on the automobile. Gendreau asked Parada to repair the car at a lower price by…

I concur and dissent:

I agree that an appeal will not lie.

I do not agree that an application for an extraordinary writ equates with an appeal or that the exclusion of an appeal embraces an exclusion of the right to apply for an extraordinary writ.

I think certiorari lies and I would treat this petition for a writ of mandate as an application for a writ of certiorari.

The meager record before us shows indisputably the following facts:

Code of Civil Procedure section 1068 provides in pertinent part: “A writ of review may be granted . . . when an inferior tribunal . .. has exceeded the jurisdiction of such tribunal . .. and there is no appeal . .. [or] any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy.”

It is not within the power of a court to disregard undisputed evidence; and/or to fail in all respects to act in accordance with the specific *771 directives of an applicable statute; and/or to substitute or add a condition not required by the applicable statute.

In the case at bench, the net effect of the alleged judgment is to judicially approve the conduct of respondent whereby he obtained repossession of his automobile by delivery of a check he did not intend to pay. A decision so…

Leon A. Gendreau, in pro. per., for Real Party in Interest and Respondent.

OPINION

COMPTON, J.

Trinidad Parada, doing business as Bud's Auto Service, filed an action in the Small Claims Court of the Los Angeles Judicial District against Leon Gendreau to recover $432.50 alleged to be owing for repairs on Gendreau's automobile.

The small claims court entered judgment for Gendreau on the grounds that Parada did not have a written authorization for the work. That court was of the opinion that Business and Professions Code section 9884.9, subdivision (a), [1] required such written authorization.

Parada petitioned the Superior Court of Los Angeles County for a writ of mandate to direct the small claims court to enter judgment in his favor. The superior court denied the petition declaring that the case of Bennett v. Hayes, 53 Cal. App.3d 700 [ 125 Cal. Rptr. 825 ], appeared to "bar an action for the reasonable value of automotive repair services." Parada appeals from the judgment denying the petition for mandate.

On May 28, 1975, Gendreau brought his 1966 Oldsmobile to Parada's auto repair shop in San Pedro, California. Parada made a written estimate of $544.12 for repairs to be…