Entente Design, Inc. v. Superior Court

Good Law
154 Cal. Rptr. 3d 216·2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 183·2013 D.A.R. 3133·214 Cal. App. 4th 385·2013 WL 937750
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 12, 2013No. D062951California2,263 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

McConnell, J.

INTRODUCTION

In this petition, we must decide whether, for purposes of determining the timeliness of a challenge to a trial judge under Code of Civil Procedure 1 *388 section 170.6 (section 170.6 challenge), an independent calendar court functioned as a master calendar court when the independent calendar court assigned a case to another courtroom. We conclude under the circumstances presented that the independent calendar court did not function as a master calendar court. Therefore, the section 170.6 challenge at issue in this case was timely and the superior court should have granted it.

BACKGROUND

This petition arises from a corporate dissolution action filed by minority shareholder Leigh A. Pfeiffer (plaintiff) against Entente Design, Inc., and majority shareholders John and Carrie Arbuckle (defendants). The case was originally assigned to the Hon. John S. Meyer for all purposes.

On November 6, 2012, counsel attended an ex parte hearing. At the hearing, Judge Meyer granted defense counsel’s request to continue the start of trial one day from November 13 to November 14. Judge Meyer also orally advised counsel he would not be available on November 14 and would tell…

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.