Fight for the Rams v. Superior Court

Good Law
1996 Cal. App. LEXIS 18·41 Cal. App. 4th 953·48 Cal. Rptr. 2d 851·96 Daily Journal DAR 403·96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 204
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 5, 1996G017874California2,314 words

Opinion

Opinion

Crosby, J.

Within 10 days of this matter’s being assigned for all purposes to a superior court judge, defendant’s demurrer was sustained and plaintiff filed a Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6 peremptory challenge. The court erroneously denied the motion as untimely. We issue a peremptory writ of mandate accordingly.

I

On February 15, 1995, Fight for the Rams, an association of football season ticket holders, sued the Los Angeles Rams Football Company, Inc. (Rams) and several other defendants for damages allegedly caused by the franchise’s then proposed and now realized move to St. Louis. Pursuant to civil case management procedures adopted by the Orange County Superior Court, the lawsuit was assigned to a judge for all purposes. The Rams filed a demurrer, a motion to strike, and a motion for a protective order. At the hearing, however, the assigned judge recused himself, transferred the matter to “Department 33,” and advised the parties the motions would be heard there on May 3, 1995.

But on May 3, 1995, the clerk in department 32 telephoned counsel to let them know the previous order was in error: the matter had been assigned to department 32; and the motions were continued…

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.