Kajima Engineering & Costruction, Inc. v. Pacific Bell

Appellant seeks reversal of a judgment entered upon a referee’s statement of decision. The sole ground for appeal is the referee’s alleged failure to take the oath required of temporary judges by California Rules of Court, rule 244, and the California Constitution, article VI, section 21.

The appeal fails because it is based on a mistaken assumption concerning the form of alternative dispute resolution employed here. The appeal

*1400 wrongly assumes a temporary judge tried this case. Instead, trial was conducted by a referee on a general reference pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 638, subdivision (a). 1 Although a temporary judge is required to take an oath, a referee is not.

Statement of Facts and Procedural Background

This case arose out of a work-related injury at a construction site. Kajima Engineering and Construction, Inc. (Kajima) sued defendants (collectively Pacific Bell) to recover workers’ compensation benefits paid to its injured employee, Manuel Gonzalez. Gonzalez joined the litigation as a plaintiff in intervention, seeking to recover from Pacific Bell for his personal injury.

The case was assigned for all purposes to Judge Hugh Michael…