CASDEN

In a prior appeal in this case, this court reversed the matter in part and remanded it to the trial court. Upon remand, petitioner filed a peremptory challenge under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6 to disqualify the judge who presided over the prior trial and was assigned to conduct a new trial in the matter. Petitioner later filed a motion, attempting to challenge a different judge under section 170.6. The trial court denied petitioner’s motion, concluding petitioner already had exercised the one peremptory challenge to which he was entitled under section 170.6.

In his petition for writ of mandate, petitioner contends a successful appellant who chooses to file a peremptory challenge for the first time upon remand from the appellate court may later exercise another peremptory challenge under section 170.6. We disagree with petitioner’s reading of the statute and conclude the trial court properly denied petitioner’s second peremptory challenge. Accordingly, we deny the writ petition.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW

In May 1999, petitioner filed this action against real parties in interest. The following year, the matter went to trial, the jury reached a verdict and…