“A judge, court commissioner, or referee of a superior court of the State of California shall not try a civil or criminal action or special proceeding of any kind or character nor hear any matter therein that involves a contested issue of law or fact when it is established as provided in this section that the judge or court commissioner is prejudiced against a party or attorney or the interest of a party or attorney appearing in the action or proceeding.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 170.6(a)(1).) A motion trying to achieve this goal is typically known as a “170.6 motion”.
A judge shall be disqualified if any one or more of the following are true:
(Code Civ. Proc., § 170.1; Mahnke v. Super. Ct. (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 565, 577; Gai v. City of Selma (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 213, 230-233.)
“It shall not be grounds for disqualification that the judge:
(Code Civ. Proc., § 170.2; People v. Super. Ct. (Mudge) (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 407; United Farm Workers of America v. Super. Ct. (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 97, 103.)
“A party to, or an attorney appearing in, an action or proceeding may establish this prejudice by an oral or written motion without prior notice supported by affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury, or an oral statement under oath, that the judge, court commissioner, or referee before whom the action or proceeding is pending, or to whom it is assigned, is prejudiced against a party or attorney, or the interest of the party or attorney, so that the party or attorney cannot, or believes that he or she cannot, have a fair and impartial trial or hearing before the judge, court commissioner, or referee.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 170.6(a)(2); Barrett v. Super. Ct. (1999) 77 Cal.App.4th 1, 4.)
“As a remedial statute, section 170.6 is to be liberally construed in favor of allowing a peremptory challenge, and a challenge should be denied only if the statute absolutely forbids it.” (Stephens v. Super. Ct. (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 54, 61-62.) In other words, section 170.6 “permits a party to obtain the disqualification of a judge for prejudice, upon a sworn statement, without being required to establish it as a fact to the satisfaction of a judicial body” (Barrett v. Super. Ct. (1999) 77 Cal.App.4th 1, 4 (citations omitted).)
“[N]o party or attorney shall be permitted to make more than one such motion in any one action or special proceeding pursuant to this section.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 170.6(a)(4); Birts v. Super. Ct. (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 53, 58.)
The following outlines the conditions to which a timely and proper motion must be submitted:
Form
Any affidavit filed pursuant to Section 170.6 shall be presented substantially in the same form. (Code Civ. Proc., § 170.6(a)(6).)
Timeline
“If the judge, other than a judge assigned to the case for all purposes, court commissioner, or referee assigned to, or who is scheduled to try, the cause or hear the matter is known at least 10 days before the date set for trial or hearing, the motion shall be made at least 5 days before that date.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 170.6(a)(2); People v. Super. Ct. (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1164, 1180-1184.)
“If directed to the trial of a cause with a master calendar, the motion shall be made to the judge supervising the master calendar not later than the time the cause is assigned for trial.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 170.6(a)(2).)
“If directed to the trial of a civil cause that has been assigned to a judge for all purposes, the motion shall be made to the assigned judge or to the presiding judge by a party within 15 days after notice of the all purpose assignment, or if the party has not yet appeared in the action, then within 15 days after the appearance.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 170.6(a)(2); Bambula v. Super. Ct. (1985) 174 Cal.App.3rd 653, 656.)
A peremptory challenge may not be made when a subsequent proceeding is a “continuation” of an earlier action. (Jacobs v. Super. Ct. In and For Los Angeles County (1959) 53 Cal.2d 187, 190.) “Although [section 170.6] does not expressly so provide, it follows that, since the [peremptory challenge] must be made before the trial has commenced, it cannot be entertained as to subsequent hearings which are a part or a continuation of the original proceedings.” (Id.) The rule is designed to prevent forum shopping. (Id. at 191.)
“A party to a civil action making that motion under [section 170.6] shall serve notice on all parties no later than five days after making the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 170.6(a)(3).)
If the motion is timely and filed in proper form, the trial court must accept it without further inquiry, and the disqualification is effective immediately. (Davcon, Inc. v. Roberts & Morgan (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1355, 1360.)
“In no event shall a judge, court commissioner, or referee entertain the motion if it is made after the drawing of the name of the first juror, or if there is no jury, after the making of an opening statement by counsel for plaintiff, or if there is no opening statement by counsel for plaintiff, then after swearing in the first witness or the giving of any evidence or after trial of the cause has otherwise commenced.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 170.6(a)(2).)
Here, the peremptory challenge to Judge Sotelo contains no such evidence, in that Julie C. Lim submitted no evidence – or even argument – of this kind in support of the peremptory challenge she filed. Thus, under the authority cited above, Judge Sotelo should not have accepted this second defense-side CCP § 170.6 peremptory challenge but instead should have struck it.
Aug 18, 2016
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
The Court finds that Petitioner is essentially seeking review of the Court’s granting of the peremptory challenge that was filed by Respondent in the Rosen Action, was accepted by the Court, and wants this Court to reverse its acceptance of such peremptory challenge. Petitioner is seeking to “strike” Respondent’s peremptory challenge as to Judge Fahey.
Dec 26, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Ross In Support of Peremptory Challenge to Judicial Officer [CCP §170.6(a)(2)]” in BC290553. The parties filed the Peremptory Challenge to Judicial Officer, LASC form LACIV 015, on July 6, 2020. On July 10, 2020, Judge Mooney accepted the challenge noting it was “timely based upon the Remittitur dated May 7, 2020 and the reassignment date of June 25, 2020.” On July 20, 2020, Judge Barbara M. Scheper recused herself pursuant to CCP § 170.1.
Sep 10, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
On March 16, 2020, the Court of Appeal ruled that this Court erred in denying Plaintiff’s 170.6 challenge filed in the Secondary Case[2] and issued an alternative writ, directing this Court to: (1) vacate the order denying Plaintiff’s 170.6 peremptory challenge and thereafter enter a new and different order granting the 170.6 peremptory challenge as timely filed; or (2) in the alternative, show cause before the Court of Appeal, as to why the Court had not done so and why a peremptory writ of mandate should not
Jun 24, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff Neil Shapiro as Special Trustee of the Robert H Lintz Living Trust UDT February 26, 1988's Motion to Strike Peremptory Challenge of Defendant and Cross-Complainants The motion of Plaintiff Neil Shapiro as Special Trustee of the Robert H. Lintz Living Trust UDT February 26, 1988 to strike the 05/25/17 “Peremptory Challenge Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 170.6” is DENIED. Plaintiff argues that the Peremptory Challenge was untimely filed. The Court disagrees.
Jun 23, 2017
Orange County, CA
The Court finds that Petitioner is essentially seeking review of the Court’s granting of the peremptory challenge that was filed by Respondent in the Rosen Action, was accepted by the Court, and wants this Court to reverse its acceptance of such peremptory challenge. Petitioner is seeking to “strike” Respondent’s peremptory challenge as to Judge Fahey.
Dec 26, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
In Rothstein, the court identified two issues in assessing the effect of the 170.6 peremptory challenge at issue: (1) whether the peremptory challenge was duly presented or “validly filed” in the second action and (2) whether “both cases must be transferred to another judge” if the peremptory challenge is granted. (Rothstein, supra, 3 Cal.App.5th 424, 430.)
Jan 07, 2021
Employment
Other Employment
Los Angeles County, CA
Pursuant to CCP § 170.6, Mr. Popal had 15 days in which to exercise his peremptory challenge. The peremptory challenge was not filed until March 13, 2018, which is 28 days after service. The Peremptory Challenged pursuant to CCP § 170.6 is DENIED as untimely.
Mar 26, 2018
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
On January 29, 2019, Hannonen filed a peremptory challenge which was denied as untimely. ROA # 23. On February 1, 2019, Hannonen filed a "Motion for Peremptory Challenge Based Upon Displayed Bias" pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6. The motion is addressed to Presiding Judge Peter Deddeh but was filed with this Court. To the extent the motion is properly before this Court, it is denied. A party may file only one peremptory challenge in an action. Code Civ. Proc., § 170.6, subd. (a)(4).
May 16, 2019
Real Property
other
San Diego County, CA
Coffee’s peremptory challenge under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6 was filed on February 23, 2018. Accordingly, the challenge was filed within 15 days of the filing of the amended complaint. No prior judicial challenge has been filed in this action. The court rejected the challenge as untimely because it was not filed within 15 days of the original complaint and because only one challenge is permitted per side to an action. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 170.6(a)(2), 170.6(a)(4).)
Apr 16, 2018
Tulare County, CA
On June 24, 2019, Ted filed a Peremptory Challenge to Judge Landin under CCP §170.6 in the related case 19STCV19139. On June 28, 2019, Harry Roussos (“Harry”) and Christine Roussos (“Christine”) filed the instant Motion to Strike Ted’s Peremptory Challenge. The Court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers and rules as follows. Standard Code of Civ. Proc.
Jul 25, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
MOTION FOR PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE, PER 170.6 C.C.P. TO JUDGE Ronald e. quidachay Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for Friday, January 22, 2016, line 7. PLAINTIFFS MARIE ATONDO amd ANTHONY ATONDO's MOTION FOR PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE, PER 170.6 C.C.P. TO JUDGE Ronald e. quidachay OFF CALENDAR, moot. CCP 170.6 challenge has been accepted on January 14, 2016. = (501/REQ)
Jan 22, 2016
San Francisco County, CA
On June 24, 2019, Ted filed a Peremptory Challenge to Judge Landin under CCP §170.6 in the related case 19STCV19139. On June 28, 2019, Harry Roussos (“Harry”) and Christine Roussos (“Christine”) filed the instant Motion to Strike Ted’s Peremptory Challenge. The Court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers and rules as follows. Standard Code of Civ. Proc.
Jul 25, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
On November 6, 2020, a Peremptory Challenge to Judicial Officer (Code Civ. Proc. Section 170.6) was filed as to Ralph C. Hofer, Judge, on behalf of Erik Goodrich, Cross Defendant. An opposition to Peremptory Challenge was filed on November 6, 2020, and a Reply filed on November 9, 2020.
Jan 08, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendants Charon Solutions Inc. and Perry Leonard Segal oppose, asserting that the CCP § 170.6 peremptory challenge to Judge White was timely and was accepted as timely, and that Ms.
Aug 23, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
MOTION FOR PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE, PER 170.6 C.C.P. TO JUDGE HONORABLE RONALD E QUIDACHAY Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for October 13, 2017 line 5. DEFENDANT OSCAR ZAVALETA's MOTION FOR PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE, PER 170.6 C.C.P. TO JUDGE HONORABLE RONALD E QUIDACHAY OFF CALENDAR. CCP 170.6 challenge accepted on October 10, 2017. = (501/REQ)
Oct 13, 2017
San Francisco County, CA
MOTION FOR PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE, PER 170.6 C.C.P. TO JUDGE RONALD E. QUIDACHAY Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for Tuesday, October 24, 2017, Line 3. DEFENDANT AGNES KOZEL'S MOTION FOR PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE, PER 170.6 C.C.P. TO JUDGE RONALD E. QUIDACHAY. OFF CALENDAR. CCP 170.6 Challenge to the Honorable Ronald Evans Quidachay accepted on October 2, 2017. =(501/REQ)
Oct 24, 2017
San Francisco County, CA
On July 24, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for peremptory challenge pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6. Discussion – Motion for Peremptory Challenge – A judge may be disqualified by filing an affidavit (usually a declaration) known as a “peremptory challenge” in any hearing involving a “contested issue of law or fact.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 170.6, subd. (a)(1).)
Aug 13, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
BC626405 ANTRANIK KEVORKIAN v LISA ANN HASTINGS Motion – Request for Peremptory Challenge to Judicial Officer -170.6 CCP section 170.6 requires a challenge to an all purpose civil assignment to be made within 15 days of notice of the assignment. This case, BC626405, was transferred to this department on December 16, 2016 at a hearing at which the Plaintiff was present. Further, the clerk of the court mailed a copy of the order on the same date, December 16, 2016.
Feb 17, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Therefore, any peremptory disqualification pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sec. 170.6 should have been filed within ten days. The parties appeared before Judge Eskin on Monday, February 22, 2010, after the expiration of the statutory time within which a peremptory challenge could be filed.
Mar 15, 2010
Santa Barbara County, CA
Section 170.6 Peremptory Challenge, Vacate this Court’s Order Reassigning the Matter to Department 58, and Reassign this Case BC290553 (Along with Related Case BC564146) Back to Department 68” is GRANTED. The court reconsiders Judge Mooney’s February 6, 2020 ruling and the February 2, 2020 CCP § 170.6 challenge filed by Shailesh Jogani in BC290553 is denied as untimely.
Jun 25, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
MOTION FOR PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE, PER 170.6 C.C.P. TO JUDGE hon. ronald e. quidachay DEFENDANT SUPRO CORPORATION MOTION FOR PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE, PER 170.6 C.C.P. TO JUDGE hon. ronald e. quidachay MOOT. MATTER HEARD BY JUDGE BUSCH (302/JUDGE BUSCH))
Feb 18, 2005
San Francisco County, CA
Petitioners' argument that the right is eliminated even if the motion is procedurally flawed makes the peremptory challenge illusionary." Truck Ins. Exchange v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 142, 148 The Court observes that CCP §170.6 is to be liberally construed.
Sep 16, 2015
Real Property
other
Ventura County, CA
MOTION FOR PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE, PER 170.6 C.C.P. TO JUDGE THE HONORABLE JAMES L. WARREN MATTER IS SET FOR HEARING ON JUNE 2, 2006. DEFENDANT MARNI ARENDTS' MOTION FOR PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE, PER 170.6 C.C.P. TO JUDGE THE HONORABLE JAMES L. WARREN. HEARING REQUIRED. = (302/REQ/HE)
Jun 02, 2006
San Francisco County, CA
MOTION FOR PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE, PER 170.6 C.C.P. TO JUDGE busch Set for hearing on Friday, February 5, 2010, LINE 16, PLAINTIFF LYLE HUGHES MOTION FOR PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE, PER 170.6 C.C.P. TO JUDGE BUSCH. GRANTED. =(302/CWW)
Feb 05, 2010
San Francisco County, CA
Please wait a moment while we load this page.