Sizzler USA Restaurants v. Superior Court CA4/1

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 12, 2015D067889California600 words

Opinion

Opinion

BACKGROUND

On March 17, 2015, Busch filed an employment-related complaint for damages

and other relief against Sizzler in the San Diego County Superior Court (the superior

court). On that same date, the case was assigned to the Honorable Judith F. Hayes for all

purposes. A summons was issued on March 18 and personally served on Sizzler on

March 20. On April 2, Sizzler filed a peremptory challenge to Judge Hayes, pursuant to

Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6. The challenge included a declaration from

Sizzler's counsel stating Judge Hayes is so prejudiced against Sizzler or its counsel that it

will not get a fair hearing before her. Judge Hayes denied the challenge on April 8 as

untimely.

Sizzler challenged the denial by filing a petition for a writ of mandate in this court.

(See Code Civ. Proc., § 170.3, subd. (d).) We stayed further proceedings in the superior

court and notified the parties we were considering issuing a peremptory writ in the first

instance. (See Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 178-179.)

We also requested Busch file a response, but she declined to do so.

DISCUSSION

Sizzler's peremptory challenge was…

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.