In Ducoing Management Inc. v. Superior Court (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 306, the California Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District emphasized the importance of clear and understandable instructions to a lower court as part of a remand proceeding.

The plaintiffs created a painting company, Ducoing Enterprises Inc. (DEI). DEI sued an insurance broker, alleging it failed to procure appropriate insurance coverage for the painting company and a noted business. During the initial jury trial, the court granted the broker’s motion for nonsuit against the plaintiffs and their companies. The court also awarded the broker reasonable costs. Although the appellate court affirmed the judgment as to one of the companies, it reversed the judgment “in all other respects” and remanded for a retrial as to that entity. Upon remand to a different trial judge, the broker sought to enforce the entire joint cost award. The trial court granted the broker’s request for costs, and a writ petition followed.

The Court of Appeal granted the writ, noting that an appellate court’s disposition “is not intended to be a riddle” and must be followed by the trial court on remand. The court noted that such disposition should be “construed according to the wording of its directions” and in conjunction with appellate opinion. The court noted that the “ ‘unqualified’ (‘[i]n all other respects’)” reversal necessarily included the cost award. Thus, a preemptory writ issued directing the trial court to vacate the denial of the plaintiffs’ motion.