What is Judicial Disclosure re: Disqualification?

Useful Rulings on Judicial Disclosure re: Disqualification

Recent Rulings on Judicial Disclosure re: Disqualification

ONE MORENO VALLEY 240, L.P. VS. BARONET & CO., INC.

Arbitrator Nondisclosure and Bias General Disclosure Requirements: Pursuant to CCP §1281.9(a), “when a person is to serve as a neutral arbitrator, the proposed neutral arbitrator shall disclose all matters that could cause a person aware of the facts to reasonably entertain a doubt that the proposed neutral arbitrator would be able to be impartial, including … (1) the existence of any ground specified in Section 170.1 for disqualification of a judge [and] (2) any matters required to be disclosed by the ethics

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 2020

CORRINE KIN ET AL VS SHIRA CLEMENT ET AL

CCP § 1281.9(a)(6) & (b)(bold emphasis added). An award must be vacated if the court determines, inter alia, that the rights of a party were substantially prejudiced by the misconduct or bias of a neutral arbitrator. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1286.2, subds. (b) & (c).) The established test for making this determination when a party asserts prejudice because of an arbitrator's conflict of interest is whether the record reveals facts which might create an impression of possible bias.

  • Hearing

    Jul 12, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

NIEDZWIECKI VS. SHASTA COUNTY SHERIFF

The Court makes this Disclosure as required by California Code of Judicial Ethics, Canon 3E(2)(a). This matter is on calendar for trial resetting. This matter was filed on January 5, 2018. The November 27, 2018 trial date was continued pursuant to stipulation. A jury trial has been demanded by both parties and jury fees have been posted. The parties have indicated a 4-5 day trial estimate.

  • Hearing

    Apr 08, 2019

NIEDZWIECKI VS. SHASTA COUNTY SHERIFF

The Court makes this Disclosure as required by California Code of Judicial Ethics, Canon 3E(2)(a). This matter is on calendar for trial resetting. This matter was filed on January 5, 2018. The November 27, 2018 trial date was continued pursuant to stipulation. A jury trial has been demanded by both parties and jury fees have been posted. The parties have indicated a 4-5 day trial estimate.

  • Hearing

    Apr 08, 2019

PAHL VS. COUNTY JAIL, ET AL

The Court makes this Disclosure as required by California Code of Judicial Ethics, Canon 3E(2)(a). Tentative Ruling on Order to Show Cause Re Monetary Sanctions: An Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions issued on February 19, 2019 to Plaintiff for failure to timely serve the Amended Complaint on Defendant Shasta County. In light of the proof of service filed February 4, 2019 showing service of the Amended Complaint on Defendant, the Court declines to impose sanctions.

  • Hearing

    Mar 25, 2019

BIARD V. MERITAGE HOMES OF CALIFORNIA, INC.

. §1281.9(a); Haworth v. Superior Court (2010) 50 Cal.4th 372, 381. The evaluation of impartiality is objective. There must be a specific identifiable reason for suspecting the arbitrator would not be impartial, but instead would favor one particular side. It does not matter if a litigant subjectively believes the arbitration might not be able to be impartial. Id. at 389.

  • Hearing

    Jan 29, 2019

MEDICINE FOR OUR MILITARY VS. COUNTY OF SHASTA

The Court does not believe Judge Wood’s step-daughter or the Department of Child Support Services has any involvement in the investigation, management, prosecution or defense of this case but does disclose the employment relationship between named defendant County of Shasta and the Court’s first degree relative as required by California Code of Judicial Ethics, Canon 3E(2).

  • Hearing

    Dec 31, 2018

VIDRIO VS SCRIPPS HEALTH CORPORATION

The court has considered the requirements of Canon 3E(1) and Canon 3E(2) and the California Judges Association Opinion 54 which provides guidance to judges who have served in a management capacity relating to litigation involving the court. In the current case, the court believes that disclosure but not recusal is the appropriate response as Mr. Plevin does not appear involved in the instant matter and the matters Mr. Plevin provided advice to court's counsel on are all completed.

  • Hearing

    Dec 13, 2018

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

VIDRIO VS SCRIPPS HEALTH CORPORATION

The court has considered the requirements of Canon 3E(1) and Canon 3E(2) and the California Judges Association Opinion 54 which provides guidance to judges who have served in a management capacity relating to litigation involving the court. In the current case, the court believes that disclosure but not recusal is the appropriate response as Mr. Plevin does not appear involved in the instant matter and the matters Mr. Plevin provided advice to court's counsel on are all completed.

  • Hearing

    Dec 13, 2018

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

PAHL VS. COUNTY JAIL, ET AL

The Court does not believe Judge Wood’s step-daughter or the Department of Child Support Services has any involvement in the investigation, management, prosecution or defense of this case but does disclose the employment relationship between named defendant County of Shasta and the Court’s first degree relative as required by California Code of Judicial Ethics, Canon 3E(2). properly sustained where the complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2018

R & R CONSTRUCTION, INC. VS REON ROSKI

(See CCP §§1281.9(a), 1286.2(a)(6).) Plaintiff’s counsel, James Orland, states in his declaration that the Arbitrator had been involved in a dispute with a swimming pool contractor in 1997, which was heard before an arbitrator in 2000—nearly 20 years ago. (Mot. at p.9; Orland Decl., ¶17, Ex. L.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 19, 2018

BAHMAN REZAIPOUR VS L A COUNTY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

CJE Canon 3E(2)(a) states: “A judge shall disclose information that is reasonably relevant to the question of disqualification under [CCP] 170.1, even if the judge believes there is no actual basis for disqualification.” Rezaipour’s contention is unpersuasive. The operative words are “reasonably relevant.” As noted ante, case law does not support disqualification of a judge who receives local judicial benefits in cases involving the county.

  • Hearing

    Sep 06, 2018

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

R & R CONSTRUCTION, INC. VS REON ROSKI

(See CCP §§1281.9(a), 1286.2(a)(6).) Plaintiff’s counsel, James Orland, states in his declaration that the Arbitrator had been involved in a dispute with a swimming pool contractor in 1997, which was heard before an arbitrator in 2000—nearly 20 years ago. (Mot. at p.9; Orland Decl., ¶17, Ex. L.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 17, 2018

PARKER VS. ALAI

, a signed acceptance by that individual, and a proposed court order compliant with CCP §639.

  • Hearing

    Jun 15, 2018

NICHOLAS & BUTLER LLP VS CARTWRIGHT TERMITE AND PEST CONTROL INC

Proc. 1281.9(a-b).) An arbitrator's failure to timely comply with these disclosure obligations may be grounds for vacatur of the arbitration award. (Ovitz v. Schulman (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 830, 844-45.) Respondents contend the award should be vacated in this matter because the arbitrator failed to timely disclose the fact that he acted as co-counsel with Petitioner on an unrelated case in 2015. (Opp. at pp. 3-4.)

  • Hearing

    May 23, 2018

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

  • County

    San Diego County, CA

PARKER VS. ALAI -

The parties are to report back on 06/15/18 with (1) an agreement as to who will be appointed as the discovery referee or (2) two proposals for that side’s preferred referee, coupled with a curriculum vitae, a disclosure per CCP §1281.9, a signed acceptance by that individual, and a proposed court order compliant with CCP §639. See CCP §640. Parties shall exchange information on proposed referees at least 7 days prior to the hearing, so that objections per CCP §641 can be timely exercised.

  • Hearing

    May 18, 2018

SURJIT SINGH V. 21ST CENTURY INSURANCE

The petition is GRANTED and the arbitration award is VACATED, under Code of Civil Procedure §§1286.2(a)(6), 1286.4, and 1281.9(a)(1), (5) and (6). The court has not considered any evidence of settlement negotiations and offers before the arbitration award, as such evidence is irrelevant and inadmissible under Evidence Code §§1152, 350 and 352. This case is ordered related to 17CV316384, which is petitioner’s original claim for uninsured motorist benefits, filed on 9/27/17.

  • Hearing

    Apr 19, 2018

TOBLER VS JAMES POTTS

See CCP Section 1281.9(a)(3)-(9). The arbitrator also must disclose any ground specified in Section 170.1 for disqualification of a judge, as well as “matters required to be disclosed by the ethics standards for neutral arbitrators adopted by the Judicial Council. See CCP Section 1281.9(a)(1), (2); Cal. Rules of Court, Ethics Standards for Neutral Arbitrators in Contractual Arbitration (“Ethics Standards”).

  • Hearing

    Dec 13, 2017

NGUYEN VS. APPLIED MEDICAL RESOURCES CORPORATION

(CCP § 1281.9(a).) “The question is not whether [the arbitrator] might actually be biased; the question is whether ‘a person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that the [arbitrator] would be able to be impartial’ given the particular circumstances of the case. (Citation.) The test is an objective one-whether the facts might create an impression of possible bias in the eyes of the hypothetical reasonable person.” (Ceriale v. AMCO Ins. Co. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 500, 506.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 18, 2017

IN RE MARRONE BIO INNOVATIONS, INC.

Pursuant to Canon 3E (2) of the Code of Judicial Ethics, Judge McAdam hereby discloses on the record that defendant Hector Absi was his former neighbor in Davis, California. It should be noted that before this disclosure was made, the Court analyzed the issue of disqualification.

  • Hearing

    Jan 11, 2017

FRANCIS CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC VS LANE JR, MARTIN KEITH

(Id. at 1310 (quoting CCP section 1281.9(a)).) The disclosure requirement “involves an objective test that focuses on a reasonable person’s perception of bias and does not require actual bias.” (Id. at 1311.) “An impression of possible bias in the arbitration context means that one could reasonably form a belief that an arbitrator was biased for or against a party for a particular reason.” (Id. (emphasis in original).)

  • Hearing

    Dec 13, 2016

  • Judge

    Elaine Lu or Yolanda Orozco

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

GREGORY VS ABOU SAMRA MD

CCP §1281.9(a). But, only if the matter "could cause a person aware of the facts to reasonably entertain a doubt that the proposed neutral arbitration would be able to be impartial." Id. "The "person" referenced in this disclosure requirement concerning partiality is an objective, reasonable person. (Guseinov v. Burns (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 944, 960, 51 Cal.Rptr.3d 903.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 15, 2016

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • County

    Ventura County, CA

GREGORY VS ABOU SAMRA MD

CCP §1281.9(a). But, only if the matter "could cause a person aware of the facts to reasonably entertain a doubt that the proposed neutral arbitration would be able to be impartial." Id. "The "person" referenced in this disclosure requirement concerning partiality is an objective, reasonable person. (Guseinov v. Burns (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 944, 960, 51 Cal.Rptr.3d 903.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 15, 2016

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • County

    Ventura County, CA

JAMES SALINAS SR VS. NORTHERN CALIFORNIA CARPENTERS REGIONAL COUNCIL ET AL

GRANT DISQUALIFICATION, BECAUSE MCKAY DID NOT COMPLY WITH CCP 1281.9(a)(3) and (a)(4). PARTIES TO COMPLY WITH ALTERNATE ARBITRATOR SELECTION AS FOUND IN CMA. ARBITRATION CLAUSE NOT UNCONSCIONABLE AND COURT SEVERS FEE PROVISION. =(302/PHA/PB)

  • Hearing

    Jan 23, 2009

1

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.