Kowal Law Group Logo

CEB has my article, “The 15 days to file a 170.6 does not start running if a “significant issue” was left unassigned”

Tim Kowal     August 7, 2024

CEB DailyNews has published my article, “The 15 days to file a 170.6 does not start running if a “significant issue” was left unassigned.” The article is about Taylor v. Superior Court (D4d2 May 9, 2024 No. E082661) [nonpub. opn.], involving two wrinkles to the peremptory-challenge deadline.

Wrinkle #1: When the trial judge denied a peremptory challenge as untimely, the Court of Appeal issued a writ. An assignment merely for trial is not the same as an assignment “for all purposes.” Specifically, at the time of the trial assignment, there was still a “substantial matter” pending before the commissioner, and this defeated the 15-day “all purpose assignment” deadline.

Wrinkle #2: The judge happened to be the only judge on the family panel, and there is a “one-judge court” exception under section 170.6(2). But the one-judge court exception didn’t apply, said the Court of Appeal, because there are 53 judges in the Riverside Superior Court. Just because they may be split up into various “branches” does not change the fact that this is far from a “one-judge court.”

Takeaway: Know when an all-purpose assignment happens. And know that you need to challenge an erroneous denial of a peremptory challenge by writ within 10 days.

The original post is here.

Tim Kowal is an appellate specialist certified by the California State Bar Board of Legal Specialization. Tim helps trial attorneys and clients win their cases and avoid error on appeal. He co-hosts the Cal. Appellate Law Podcast at CALpodcast.com, and publishes summaries of cases and appellate tips for trial attorneys. Contact Tim at [email protected] or (949) 676-9989.
Get “Not To Be Published,” a weekly digest of these articles, delivered directly to your inbox!
Subscribe

"At common law, barratry was 'the offense of frequently exciting and stirring up suits and quarrels' (4 Blackstone, Commentaries 134) and was punished as a misdemeanor."

Rubin v. Green (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1187

"Upon putting laws into writing, they became even harder to change than before, and a hundred legal fictions rose to reconcile them with reality."

— Will Durant

"Moot points have to be settled somehow, once they get thrust upon us. If an assertion cannot be proved, then it must be settled some other way, and nearly all of these ways are unfair to somebody."

—T.H. White, The Once and Future King

"A judge is a law student who grades his own papers."

— H.L. Mencken

Show neither partiality to the weak nor deference to the mighty, but judge your fellow men justly.

Leviticus

"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws."

— Plato (427-347 B.C.)

“It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?”

— James Madison, Federalist 62

"God made the angels to show Him splendor, … Man He made to serve Him wittily, in the tangle of his mind."

— Sir Thomas More in Robert Bolt's A Man for All Seasons

"So far as the beginnings of law had theories, the first theory of liability was in terms of a duty to buy off the vengeance of him to whom an injury had been done whether by oneself or by something in one's power. The idea is put strikingly in the Anglo-Saxon legal proverb, 'Buy spear from side or bear it,' that is, buy off the feud or fight it out."

— Roscoe Pound, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Law

"Counsel on the firing line in an actual trial must be prepared for surprises, including requests for amendments of pleading. They cannot ask that a judgment afterwards obtained be set aside merely because their equilibrium was slightly disturbed by an unexpected motion."

Posz v. Burchell (1962) 209 Cal.App.2d 324, 334

"It may be that the court is thought to be excessively legalistic. I should be sorry to think that it is anything else."

— Hon. Sir Owen Dixon, Chief Justice of Australia

Copyright © 2024 Kowal Law Group
menuchevron-down
linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram