Stephens

Stephens v. Superior Court

Caution
116 Cal. Rptr. 2d 616·2002 Cal. App. LEXIS 1439·2002 Daily Journal DAR 1661·96 Cal. App. 4th 54·2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1385
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 8, 2002D038328California3,859 words

Opinion

Opinion

McINTYRE, J.

This case involves the interplay between two provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6 concerning peremptory challenges of judges. Section 170.6, subdivision (2), provides that in a case assigned to a judge for all purposes, a late-appearing party can bring a motion to disqualify the judge (i.e., a peremptory challenge) within 10 days after the party’s appearance. However, the same subdivision also contains a provision precluding a peremptory challenge after the judge has decided contested fact issues relating to the merits. We hold that the latter provision precludes a peremptory challenge by a late appearing party in a proceeding in which the judge determined a contested fact issue relating to the merits or in a subsequent proceeding that qualifies as a continuation of such a proceeding. Here, the court properly denied the peremptory challenge motion at issue because the motion was made in a proceeding that was a continuation of a proceeding in which the judge determined contested fact issues relating to the merits.

Factual and Procedural Background

The instant case involves a trust created by the late Lawrence John Stephens for the benefit of his wife,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.