State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Superior Court

Bad Law
121 Cal. App. 4th 490·17 Cal. Rptr. 3d 146·2004 Cal. App. LEXIS 1301·2004 Daily Journal DAR 9747·2004 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7220
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 9, 2004No. B174063California5,187 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Mallano, J.

In general, if a trial judge enters judgment in a civil action, and the judgment is reversed on appeal, resulting in a remand to the trial judge for a “new trial,” any party can disqualify the judge by way of a peremptory challenge. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 170.6, subd. (a)(2), 2d par.)

In the present case, after the pleading stage, defendant filed a motion in the trial court to resolve a conflict of laws issue: whether California law or Illinois law applied to plaintiffs’ causes of action. Defendant argued that Illinois law applied and that the case had to be dismissed. Plaintiffs argued that California law governed and that dismissal would be improper. The trial court agreed with plaintiffs.

Defendant petitioned this court for a writ of mandate. After briefing and oral argument, we granted the petition, concluding that Illinois law applied *493 but that the trial court had correctly declined to dismiss the case. On remand, the parties appeared before the same trial judge. Defendant moved to disqualify him, filing a peremptory challenge. The judge denied the motion.

Defendant then filed another petition for writ of mandate—which is now before us—contending that the…

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.