Motion Picture & Television Fund Hospital v. Superior Court
Opinion
Opinion
The question before this court is the commencement of the statutory time period for filing a peremptory challenge to a newly assigned direct calendar judge. (Code Civ. Proc., § 170.6.) We hold the time commences when the parties receive notice of the assignment.
In this proceeding, defendant Motion Picture and Television Fund Hospital (defendant) petitions for issuance of a writ of mandate directing the respondent court to vacate its order accepting a peremptory challenge (§ 170.6) and to deny the challenge as untimely. Following our review of the petition and the relevant case law, we notified the parties to the petition we were considering the issuance of a peremptory writ of mandate in the first instance (Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171 [ 203 Cal.Rptr. 626 , 681 P.2d 893 ]; Lewis v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1232 [ 82 Cal.Rptr.2d 85 , 970 P.2d 872 ]), directing the respondent court to vacate its order accepting the peremptory challenge (§ 170.6) and to enter in its place an order rejecting the untimely filed challenge.
After reviewing the responses received, we conclude the peremptory challenge to the newly assigned judge was…