abuse of discretion standard in California

2026Code, § 210.) Generally, we apply “the abuse of discretion standard of review to any ruling by a trial court on the admissibility of evidence” (People v. Waidla 6 (2000) 22 Cal.4th 690, 717 ), including a court’s decision to admit or exclude expert testimony (People v. Smith (2003) 30 Cal.4th 581, 627 ).

2026(See People v. Waidla (2000) 22 Cal.4th 690 , 745-746 [“An appellate court applies the abuse of discretion standard of review to any decision by a trial court to instruct, or not to instruct, in its exercise of its supervision over a deliberating jury”]; People v. Hodges (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 531, 539 .) “Various definitions and principles describing the abuse of discretion standard of review have been stated and repeated in numerous cases, such as 18 in Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 331 , that we will set aside a trial court ruling only upon a showing of ‘ “ ‘a clear case of abuse’ ”

2026(People v. Garcia (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 848 , 856.) Under an abuse of discretion standard, “ ‘we ask whether the trial court’s findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, whether its rulings of law are correct, and whether its application of the law to the facts was neither arbitrary nor capricious.’ ” (People v. Clancey (2013) 56 Cal.4th 562, 578 (Clancey).) “ ‘ “The burden is on the party attacking the sentence to clearly show that the sentencing decision was irrational or arbitrary. [Citation.] In the absence of such a showing, the trial court is presumed to have acted to achie

2026(People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 371 ; People v. Mendoza (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 287 , 298 (Mendoza).) The abuse of discretion standard is highly deferential.

2026(Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. University of Southern California (2012) 55 Cal.4th 747, 773 [evidentiary rulings]; Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 540 [discovery]; City of Los Angeles v. Public Utilities Commission (1972) 7 Cal.3d 331, 352 [order quashing trial subpoena under former Code of Civil Procedure section 1987].) “The abuse of discretion standard is not a unified standard; the deference it calls for varies according to the aspect of a trial court’s ruling under review.” (Haraguchi v. Superior Court (2008) 43 Cal.4th 706, 711 .) “The question of whether a trial court app

2026Under the abuse of discretion standard, “[t]he trial court’s findings of fact are reviewed for substantial evidence.” (Haraguchi v. Superior Court (2008) 43 Cal.4th 706, 711 ; accord People v. Gerson (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 1067 , 1079.) “ ‘A substantial evidence inquiry examines the record in the light most favorable to the judgment and upholds it if the record contains reasonable, credible evidence of solid value upon which a reasonable trier of fact could have relied in reaching the conclusion in question.’ ” (People v. Armstrong (2016) 1 Cal.5th 432, 450 .) One night in June 2023, around 9:3

2021“The appellant 15 has the burden of showing there is no evidence of a sufficiently substantial nature to support the finding or order.” (In re Dakota H. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 212, 228 .) “Because a section 366.26 hearing occurs only after the court has repeatedly found the parent unable to meet the child’s needs, it is only in an extraordinary case that preservation of the parent’s rights will prevail over the Legislature’s preference for adoptive placement.” (In re Jasmine D. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1350 .) Courts have applied both the substantial evidence standard and the abuse of discr

2018State Personnel Bd . (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 813 , 831, 284 Cal.Rptr. 839 ( Department of Parks & Recreation ); In re Robert L . (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 1057 , 1065-1066, 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 654 [noting that "it is difficult to distinguish between application of the sufficiency of the evidence standard and the abuse of discretion standard" and that "in some cases the courts have applied both standards"].) "The practical differences between the [substantial evidence and abuse of discretion] standards of review are not significant. '[E]valuating the factual basis for an exercise of discretion is similar

2016(See In re Bailey J. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1308 , 1314-1315 and In re K.P. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 614, 621-622 [hybrid combination of substantial evidence and abuse of discretion standards; applying substantial evidence test to determination of existence of a beneficial sibling relationship and the abuse of discretion test to issue of whether that relationship constitutes a compelling reason for determining termination would be detrimental to the child]; In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 576 [applying substantial evidence test]; In re Jasmine D. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1351 [appl

2016(In re Cliffton B. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 415, 424-425 [Fourth Dist., Div. Three applied the substantial evidence standard]; In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567 , 576 14 [Fourth Dist., Div. One applied the substantial evidence standard]; In re Jasmine D. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1351 [First Dist., Div. Three applying the abuse of discretion standard]; In re Aaliyah R. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 437, 449 [Second Dist., Div. Eight applying the abuse of discretion standard]; In re K.P. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 614, 621-622 [Second Dist., Div. Seven applying the hybrid standard]; In re Bailey J.

2023(Autumn H., supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 576 .) 9 We review the juvenile court’s finding on the frequency of contact and the existence of a beneficial relationship for substantial evidence, and we apply the abuse of discretion standard to the court’s decision whether terminating parental rights would be detrimental to the child so as to outweigh the permanency benefits of adoption.

2023(Ibid.) ‘On review of the sufficiency of the evidence, we presume in favor of the order, considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, giving the prevailing party the benefit of every reasonable inference and resolving all conflicts in support of the order.’ (In re Autumn H., supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 576 .) Under the abuse of discretion standard of review, we determine whether the juvenile court’s decision exceeded the bounds of reason and, in 16 so doing, we cannot substitute our view for that of the juvenile court.

2026(Ibid.) An appellate court “generally review[s] a trial court’s ruling on matters regarding discovery under an abuse of discretion standard.” (People v. Ayala (2000) 23 Cal.4th 225, 299 ; Kennedy v. Superior Court (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 359, 366 [applying abuse of discretion standard to trial court’s denial of § 1054.9 discovery motion].) “ ‘ “The burden is on the party complaining to establish an abuse of discretion, and unless a clear case of abuse is shown and unless there has been a miscarriage of justice a reviewing court will not substitute its opinion and thereby divest the trial court

2025DISCUSSION A. The Applicable Law It is well settled that we presume a judgment is correct, meaning “ ‘[a]ll intendments and presumptions are indulged to support it on matters as to which the record is silent, and error must be affirmatively shown.’ ” (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 ; see In re Marriage of Arceneaux (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1130, 1133 .) We review awards of child support under an abuse of discretion standard.

2026“We review a trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence under the abuse of discretion standard.” (Austin B. v. Escondido Union School Dist. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 860, 885 .) “Under this standard, the trial court’s 7 ruling will not be disturbed, and reversal of the judgment is not required, unless the trial court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd manner that resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice.” (Bowser v. Ford Motor Co. (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 587 , 610.) Stated another way, a court abuses its discretion if its ruling “is ‘so irrational

2026(Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. University of Southern California (2012) 55 Cal.4th 747, 773 [evidentiary rulings]; Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 540 [discovery]; City of Los Angeles v. Public Utilities Commission (1972) 7 Cal.3d 331, 352 [order quashing trial subpoena under former Code of Civil Procedure section 1987].) “The abuse of discretion standard is not a unified standard; the deference it calls for varies according to the aspect of a trial court’s ruling under review.” (Haraguchi v. Superior Court (2008) 43 Cal.4th 706, 711 .) “The question of whether a trial court app

2021(Ibid.) “We review a section 128.7 sanctions award under the abuse of discretion standard. [Citation.] We presume the trial court’s order is correct and do not substitute our judgment for that of the trial court. [Citation.]” (Bucur v. Ahmad, supra, 244 Cal.App.4th at p. 190 .) “The scope of discretion,” however, “always resides in the particular law being applied, i.e., in the ‘legal principles governing the subject of [the] action . . . .’ ” (City of Sacramento v. Drew (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1287, 1297 .) “Action that transgresses the confines of the applicable principles of law is outside th

2018We began as follows: "Various definitions and principles describing the abuse of discretion standard of review have been stated and repeated in numerous *623 cases, such as in Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311 , 331 [ 216 Cal.Rptr. 718 , 703 P.2d 58 ], that we will set aside a trial court ruling only upon a showing of ' " 'a clear case of abuse' " ' and ' " 'a miscarriage of justice.' " ' As to what is required to show such abuse, it has been said that a trial court abuses its discretion only when its ruling ' " 'fall[s] "outside the bounds of reason." ' " [Citation.]' ( People v. Benavides

2024(Vosburg, supra, 54 Cal.App.5th at p. 460.) The third category of trial court determinations, which Haraguchi described as the “application of the law to the facts” (Haraguchi, supra, 43 Cal.4th at p. 712 ), can be 7 The clarification provided in Haraguchi addressed without referencing Justice Wiener’s criticism of the abuse of discretion standard as “so amorphous as to mean everything and nothing at the same time and [as] virtually useless as an analytic tool.” (Hurtado v. Statewide Home Loan Co. (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 1019, 1022 , disapproved on another ground in Shamblin v. Brattain (1988) 4

2023(Shamblin v. Brattain (1988) 44 Cal.3d 474, 478-479 .) In more practical terms, the abuse of discretion standard measures whether, in light of the evidence, the lower court’s decision falls within the permissible range of options set by the legal criteria.

2025(People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 374, 378 .) “This standard is deferential” and “asks in substance whether the ruling in question ‘falls outside the bounds of reason’ under the applicable law and the relevant facts.” (People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 162 .) “The typical abuse of discretion standard involves an analysis of whether the trial court’s decision is supported by ‘“substantial evidence.”’” (People v. Fuiava (2012) 53 Cal.4th 622, 711 .) “‘A substantial evidence inquiry examines the record in the light most favorable 6 to the judgment and upholds it if the record cont

2025(People v. Marchand (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1056 , 1063–1065.) “ ‘[W]here there are no express findings of fact, it is implied that the trial court … made whatever findings were necessary to support the judgment .…’ ” (People v. Fulkman (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 555, 560 .) We review a trial court’s order imposing discretionary registration for abuse of discretion. “[A] trial court does not abuse its discretion unless its decision is so irrational or arbitrary that no reasonable person could agree with it.” (People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 377 .) “Absent evidence to the contrary, we presume

2023“The abuse of discretion standard of review applies to any ruling by a trial court on the admissibility of evidence. [Citation.] This standard is particularly appropriate when, as here, the trial court’s determination of admissibility involved questions of relevance, the state-of-mind exception to the hearsay rule, and undue prejudice. [Citation.] Under this standard, a trial court’s ruling will not be disturbed, and reversal of the judgment is not required, unless the trial court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd manner that resulted in a manifest miscar

2022Applicable law and standard of review We “appl[y] the abuse of discretion standard of review to any ruling by a trial court on the admissibility of evidence.” (People v. Waidla (2000) 22 Cal.4th 690, 723 .) “Under this standard, a trial court’s ruling will not be disturbed, and reversal of the judgment is not required, unless the trial court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd manner that resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice.” (People v. Guerra (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1067, 1113 (Guerra), disapproved on another ground by People v. Rundle (2008) 43 Cal.4t

2025That need will often dictate the conclusion that maintenance of the current arrangement would be in the best interests of that child.’ ” (In re Stephanie M., supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 317 .) Under the abuse of discretion standard, the reviewing court cannot interfere unless “ ‘we find that under all the evidence, viewed most favorably in support of the trial court’s action, no judge could reasonably have made the order.’ ” (In re Robert L. (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 1057, 1067 .) Mother shows no such error.

2022(Stephanie M., supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 318 .) Under the abuse of discretion standard, when two or more inferences reasonably can be deduced from the facts, the reviewing court has no authority to substitute its decision for that of the trial court.

2026(Hin, supra, 17 Cal.5th at p. 476.) Under the abuse of discretion standard, “ ‘a trial court’s ruling will not be disturbed, and reversal of the judgment is not required, unless the trial court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd manner that resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice.’ ” (People v. Hovarter (2008) 44 Cal.4th 983, 1004 .) Here, the court agreed gang evidence was admissible to prove motive, intent, identity, and Jonathan’s aiding and abetting of the shooter.

2026(People v. Blackburn (1982) 139 Cal.App.3d 761, 765 .) “It is well settled that the trial court has broad discretion to order a case reopened and allow the introduction of additional evidence. [Citations.] Such a decision is proper in the absence of an abuse of discretion. [Citation.]” (People v. Goss (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 702, 706 .) “Under the abuse of discretion standard, ‘a trial court’s ruling will not be disturbed, and reversal of the judgment is not required, unless the trial court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd manner that resulted in a manifest

2024(In re D.O., supra, 247 Cal.App.4th at p. 174 .) We apply “the abuse of discretion standard to the court’s weighing of competing interests.” (Ibid.; see also In re Bailey J. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1315 .) III.

2016“It is, instead, a ‘quintessentially’ discretionary decision, which calls for the juvenile court to determine the importance of the relationship in terms of the detrimental impact that its severance can be expected to have on the child and to weigh that against the benefit to the child of adoption. [Citation.] Because this component of the juvenile court’s decision is discretionary, the abuse of discretion standard of review applies.” (In re Bailey J. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1315 .) In the present action, with regard to the necessary statutory finding the parent maintained regular visitat

2026(Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th at pp. 639-641; In re J.C., supra, 226 Cal.App.4th at pp. 530-531.) We apply the substantial evidence standard of review to the factual issues of maintenance of regular contact and visitation and the existence of a beneficial parent-child relationship, and the abuse of discretion standard to the determination of whether there is a compelling reason for finding that termination would be detrimental to the child.

2024(Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th at pp. 639-641; In re J.C., supra, 226 Cal.App.4th at pp. 530-531.) We apply the substantial evidence standard of review to the factual issues of maintenance of regular contact and visitation and the existence of a beneficial parent-child relationship, and the abuse of discretion standard to the determination of whether there is a compelling reason for finding that termination would be detrimental to the child.

2025(In re Alexander A. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 847, 852 ; People v. Giordano (2007) 42 Cal.4th 644, 663 (Giordano).) “The abuse of discretion standard is not a 3 In his opening brief, Belloli relies on the probation report in contending he received only $5,370 for the copper wire.

2023Once the victim makes a prima facie showing of economic losses incurred as a result of the defendant’s criminal acts, the burden shifts to the defendant to disprove [that showing].” (People v. Gemelli, supra, 161 Cal.App.4th 1539 , 1542–1543.) “ ‘ “[S]entencing judges are given virtually unlimited discretion as to the kind of information they can consider and the source from whence it comes.” ’ ” (People v. Foster (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 939, 947 , superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in People v. Birkett (1999) 21 Cal.4th 226 , 238–245.) “[W]e review the trial court’s restitution or

2026(Burgess, supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 32 [“[t]he standard of appellate review of custody . . . orders is the deferential abuse of discretion test,” “[t]he precise measure [of which] is whether the trial court could have reasonably concluded that the order in question advanced the ‘best interest’ of the child”], LaMusga, supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 1086 [same].) “Under an abuse of discretion standard, we review the trial court’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for substantial evidence, and we reverse its application of 12 the law to the facts only if it was arbitrary and capricious.”

2025That need will often dictate the conclusion that maintenance of the current arrangement would be in the best interests of that child.’ ” (In re Stephanie M., supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 317 .) Under the abuse of discretion standard, the reviewing court cannot interfere unless “ ‘we find that under all the evidence, viewed most favorably in support of the trial court’s action, no judge could reasonably have made the order.’ ” (In re Robert L. (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 1057, 1067 .) Mother shows no such error.

2026(People v. Jordan (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 349, 358 ; People v. Gonzales (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1744, 1758 .) “ ‘[A] trial court may, in the exercise of its discretion, “consider a wide range of sanctions” in response to [a] violation of a discovery order.’ ” (People v. Ayala (2000) 23 Cal.4th 225, 299 .) “ ‘We generally review a trial court’s ruling on matters regarding discovery under an abuse of discretion standard.’ ” (People v. Lamb (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 575, 581 .) C.

2026(Ibid.) An appellate court “generally review[s] a trial court’s ruling on matters regarding discovery under an abuse of discretion standard.” (People v. Ayala (2000) 23 Cal.4th 225, 299 ; Kennedy v. Superior Court (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 359, 366 [applying abuse of discretion standard to trial court’s denial of § 1054.9 discovery motion].) “ ‘ “The burden is on the party complaining to establish an abuse of discretion, and unless a clear case of abuse is shown and unless there has been a miscarriage of justice a reviewing court will not substitute its opinion and thereby divest the trial court

2022(In re Microsoft I-V Cases (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 706, 723 [review of approval of class action settlement]; PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095 [review of amount awarded for attorney fees].) “Thus, in reviewing approvals of class action settlements, ‘[w]e do not substitute our notions of fairness for those of the trial court or the parties to the agreement. [Citation.] “To merit reversal, both an abuse of discretion by the trial court must be ‘clear’ and the demonstration of it on appeal ‘strong.’”’ [Citation.] ‘“[G]reat weight is accorded the trial judge’s views . . . .”’

2021(PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095 .) We review a court’s determination under the abuse of discretion standard.

2025VI, § 13; Carnes v. Superior Court (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 688, 694 [an appellate court reviews a trial court’s rulings on evidentiary objections under the abuse of discretion standard].) “ ‘[A]n erroneous evidentiary ruling requires reversal only “if there is a reasonable 11. probability that a result more favorable to the appealing party would have been reached in the absence of the error.” ’ ” ( Serri, supra, 226 Cal.App.4th at pp. 857-858, quoting Twenty–Nine Palms, supra, 210 Cal.App.4th at p. 1449 .) Thus, in Serri, the appellate court concluded the trial court’s error in issuing a blanke

2025DISCUSSION I Plaintiffs Have Not Shown Error in Evidentiary Rulings A. Standards of Review for Evidentiary Rulings Although review of summary judgment itself is de novo, “an appellate court reviews a court’s final rulings on evidentiary objections by applying an abuse of discretion standard.” (Carnes v. Superior Court (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 688, 694 ; see Ortiz v. Dameron Hospital Assn. (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 568, 584 ; Michaels v. Greenberg Traurig, LLP (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 512 , 521.) B.

2025A Sentencing courts have broad discretion in selecting the lower, middle, or upper term for an offense. (§ 1170, subd. (b); People v. Sandoval (2007) 41 Cal.4th 825, 847 .) In reviewing a court’s exercise of its sentencing discretion, we apply the abuse of discretion standard.

2025(See People v. Sandoval (2007) 41 Cal.4th 825, 847 [“The trial court’s sentencing discretion must be exercised in a manner that is not arbitrary and capricious, that is consistent with the letter and spirit of the law, and that is based upon an ‘individualized consideration of the offense, the offender, and the public interest’”]; accord, People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 371, 375 (Carmony); People v. Mendoza (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 287 , 298 (Mendoza).) “The abuse of discretion standard is highly deferential.” (Mendoza, supra, 88 Cal.App.5th at p. 298.) “First, ‘“[t]he burden is on the p

2026(See People v. Waidla (2000) 22 Cal.4th 690 , 745-746 [“An appellate court applies the abuse of discretion standard of review to any decision by a trial court to instruct, or not to instruct, in its exercise of its supervision over a deliberating jury”]; People v. Hodges (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 531, 539 .) “Various definitions and principles describing the abuse of discretion standard of review have been stated and repeated in numerous cases, such as 18 in Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 331 , that we will set aside a trial court ruling only upon a showing of ‘ “ ‘a clear case of abuse’ ”

2026(See People v. Waidla (2000) 22 Cal.4th 690 , 745-746 [“An appellate court applies the abuse of discretion standard of review to any decision by a trial court to instruct, or not to instruct, in its exercise of its supervision over a deliberating jury”]; People v. Hodges (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 531, 539 .) “Various definitions and principles describing the abuse of discretion standard of review have been stated and repeated in numerous cases, such as 18 in Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 331 , that we will set aside a trial court ruling only upon a showing of ‘ “ ‘a clear case of abuse’ ”

2025(See Department of Parks & Recreation v. State Personnel Bd. (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 813 , 830–831 [discussing “the distinction between the substantial evidence rule and the abuse of discretion standard”].) Below, Carol argued Wright was limited to working 66 hours in a workweek by statute (§ 12300.4, subd. (b)(2)), which conflicted with Wright’s testimony that he worked 12 hours a day, seven days a week.

2024Marriage of James shows that the deference we owe trial courts under the abuse of discretion standard has legal limits and depends on the legal context presented. “ ‘The scope of discretion always resides in the particular law being applied, i.e., in the “legal principles governing the subject of the action . . .” Action that transgresses the confines of the applicable principles of law’ is “ ‘outside the scope of discretion and we call such action an “abuse” of discretion.’ ” (Department of Parks & Recreation v. State Personnel Bd. (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 813 , 830-831 (Department of Parks & Re

2024(Serri, 25 supra, 226 Cal.App.4th at p. 852 ; San Francisco Print Media Co. v. The Hearst Corp. (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 952 , 962 & fn. 7; but see Reid, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 535 [Supreme Court concluded that it need “not decide generally whether a trial court’s ruling on evidentiary objections based on papers alone in summary judgment proceedings are reviewed for abuse of discretion or reviewed de novo”] & Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 243, 255, fn. 4 [observing that standard of review is unsettled and assuming, without deciding, that the abuse of discretion standard a

2024(Serri, 25 supra, 226 Cal.App.4th at p. 852 ; San Francisco Print Media Co. v. The Hearst Corp. (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 952 , 962 & fn. 7; but see Reid, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 535 [Supreme Court concluded that it need “not decide generally whether a trial court’s ruling on evidentiary objections based on papers alone in summary judgment proceedings are reviewed for abuse of discretion or reviewed de novo”] & Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 243, 255, fn. 4 [observing that standard of review is unsettled and assuming, without deciding, that the abuse of discretion standard a