Rothstein

Rothstein v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County

Good Law
2016 Cal. App. LEXIS 773·207 Cal. Rptr. 3d 616·3 Cal. App. 5th 424
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 16, 2016B275603California3,096 words

Opinion

Opinion

Baker, J.

While a husband and wife were litigating their ongoing marriage dissolution case, a limited liability company run by the wife filed a civil action concerning a disputed debt at issue in the dissolution proceedings. The superior court deemed the two cases related and assigned the civil case to the already assigned judge. The question we decide is whether the limited liability company’s Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6 (section 170.6) challenge in the related civil action requires transfer of both cases to a new judge.

I

Peymaneh Rothstein (Peymaneh) and Mark Rothstein (Mark) instituted proceedings in January 2014 to dissolve their marriage, Los Angeles Superior Court case No. BD595040 (the Family Law Case). In an income and expense declaration filed in connection with her request for an order concerning child and spousal support (plus attorney fees), Peymaneh included an amended schedule of assets and debts that listed a $50,000 loan to Mark—made in the name of Precious Time, LLC (Precious Time)—among her separate property assets. After certain other preliminary proceedings, Peymaneh filed a Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6 challenge to the then-assigned…

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.