Meinhardt

I.

INTRODUCTION

“California cases have uniformly held that a trial court’s complete denial of a petition for administrative mandamus is a final judgment that may be appealed by the petitioner.” (Dhillon v. John Muir Health (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1109, 1113 (Dhillon).) And, as the Supreme Court in Dhillon explained, a ruling nominally denominated as an “order” on a petition for

writ of administrative mandate1 may, in fact, constitute a “final judgment” when such order has the effect of a final judgment. (Id. at p. 1115.) That is because it is “ ‘ “not the form of the decree but the substance and effect of the adjudication which is determinative.” ’ ” (Ibid.) In addressing whether a ruling has sufficient finality to constitute a judgment, the Dhillon court stated, “ ‘ “As a general test, which must be adapted to the particular circumstances of the individual case, it may be said that where no issue is left for future consideration except the fact of compliance or noncompliance with the terms of the first decree, that decree is final, but where anything further in the nature of judicial action on the part of the court is essential to a final determination of the rights of the parties,…