Section 170.6 - Judge or court commissioner prejudiced against party or attorney or interest of party or attorney

3 Analyses of this statute by attorneys

  1. Weekly Law Resume - April 4, 2013: Civil Procedure – Peremptory Challenge Under CCP §170.6

    Low, Ball & LynchApril 15, 2013

    Entente Design, Inc., et al. v. Superior Court of San Diego County. Court of Appeal, Fourth District (March 12, 2013) Where a party believes that it cannot get a fair and impartial hearing or trial from the judge, commissioner or referee assigned to the case, California Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6 gives the party the right to disqualify him or her without having to show a reason. In this case, the Court of Appeal considered whether, when a matter was originally assigned to one judge who was unavailable, his assignment of the matter to a second judge constituted a “master calendar court assignment,” such that the challenge had to be made immediately.

  2. Time to Disqualify Judge on Remand Not Triggered by Remittitur

    Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLPMarch 7, 2012

    California Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6 allows prevailing appellants to disqualify the original trial court judge from presiding over a case after remand from the Court of Appeal by moving to disqualify that judge within “60 days.” But when does the 60-day clock start ticking?

  3. Class Action Seeking Reimbursement Of Sales Reps’ Automobile Expenses Was Properly Dismissed

    Proskauer Rose LLPTony OncidiDecember 1, 2005

    Furthermore, the Court affirmed the trial court’s order denying class certification on the grounds that common legal and factual issues did not predominate, that plaintiffs’ claims were not typical of the class and that a class action was not a superior procedure to resolve the case. Cf. Burdusis v. Superior Court, 133 Cal. App. 4th 88 (2005) (employee could not challenge trial court judge under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 170.6 following remand from appellate court and order requiring reconsideration of motion to certify class in light of recent case law).