Jane Doe 8015 v. Superior Court

Good Law
148 Cal. App. 4th 489·2007 Cal. App. LEXIS 329·2007 Daily Journal DAR 3317·55 Cal. Rptr. 3d 708·2007 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2628
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 9, 2007No. H030303California3,251 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Elia, J.

This petition for a writ of mandamus arises from a coordinated action against the real parties in interest, SmithKline Beecham Corporation and SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc. (collectively, SmithKline). The only issue raised in the petition is whether a party in a coordinated action who successfully challenges a summary judgment on appeal may thereafter exercise a peremptory challenge of the judge presiding over the coordinated proceedings. We conclude that such challenges are permitted under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6, subdivision (a)(2), notwithstanding the time limits specified in California Rules of Court, rule 3.5.16.

Background

After one of SmithKline’s phlebotomists was terminated for reusing needles to draw blood from patients, petitioner Jane Doe 8015 was found to *492 have acquired HIV and petitioner Gerald Orzoff may have acquired and cleared hepatitis C. In April 2000, petitioners sued SmithKline, which owned and operated the laboratory where their blood had been drawn, for negligence, battery, and related claims. In their lawsuits petitioners claimed they were infected (or in Orzoff’s case, at least subjected to emotional distress…

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.