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.