This decision holds that while a trial court does not lose jurisdiction to amend or vacate an interlocutory order simply because a Court of Appeal has issued an order to show cause in response to a mandate petition, the trial court should generally not do so since the Court of Appeal’s issuance of an OSC rather than an alternative writ shows that it wishes to consider the issue raised by the petition, which might be mooted if the challenged order is vacated.  The decision also holds that absent some showing that the judge who issued the challenged ruling is unavailable, another judge on the same trial court lacks jurisdiction to reverse the challenged ruling.