Opinion
Page __
__ Cal.App.2d __ 231 P.2d 592 METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation, petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, IN AND FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, and Lile T. Jacks, one of the Judges thereof, respondents. Civ. 14443. California Court of Appeals, First District, Second Division May 22, 1951.Hearing Granted July 19, 1951.
Knight, Boland & Riordan, F. Eldred Boland and John H. Riordan, San Francisco, for petitioners.
Milton Marks, Milton Marks, Jr., San Francisco, for respondent.
GOODELL, Justice.
The petition 'for writ of prohibition or other appropriate writ' was filed herein with that in City and County of San Francisco, v. Superior Court, in and for City and County of San Francisco, No. 14,442, Cal.App., 231 P.2d 583.
The petitioner alleges that it is a life insurance corporation with an office in San Francisco employing upwards of 1,000 persons. It is one of the amici curiae in the companion case and its interest in both cases arises from the fact that it is one of the 192 firms and corporations who co-operated with the Civil Service Commission of San Francisco by supplying data and information under pledge of nondisclosure as discussed in our opinion in 14,442.
The allegations of Metropolitan's petition are substantially the same as those in the petition in 14,442. There are variations, of course, but Metropolitan's grievance is essentially the same as that of the other amici curiae whose contentions, along with those of the City and County, the Supervisors, the Commissioners and the Secretrary of the Commission, have been fully considered and discussed in our other opinion. Its counsel states that Metropolitan's case is typical of the positions of the 192 employers.
For the reasons and upon the authorities appearing in our opinion in 14,442 this day filed, the alternative writ is discharged, and the petition for a peremptory writ of prohibition is denied.
NOURSE, P. J., and DOOLING, J., concur.