HENRY v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY
Filed 6/12/06
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SEVEN
| HENRY CASDEN, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; __________________________________ ALAN CASDEN et al., Real Parties in Interest. | No. B188549 (Super. Ct. No. SC057275) |
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING; petition for writ of mandate. James A. Bascue, Judge. Petition denied.
Hillel Chodos and Deborah Chodos for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Thomas J. Nolan, Carl Alan Roth and Stephen Haydon-Khan for Real Parties in Interest.
In a prior appeal in this case, this court reversed the matter in part and remanded it to the trial court. Upon remand, petitioner filed a peremptory challenge under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6[1] to disqualify the judge who presided over the prior trial and was assigned to conduct a new trial in the matter. Petitioner later filed a motion, attempting to challenge a different judge under section 170.6. The trial court denied petitioner's motion, concluding petitioner already had exercised the one peremptory challenge to which he was entitled under section 170.6.
In his petition for writ of mandate, petitioner contends a successful appellant who chooses to file a peremptory challenge for the first time upon remand from the appellate court may later exercise another peremptory challenge under section 170.6. We disagree with petitioner's reading of the statute and conclude the trial court properly denied petitioner's second peremptory challenge. Accordingly, we deny the writ petition.
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW
In May 1999, petitioner filed this action against real parties in interest. The following year, the matter went to trial, the jury reached a verdict and judgment was entered. Petitioner appealed. In July 2002, this court reversed the judgment and the case was remanded to the trial court.[2]
The case was tried again in September 2003. Both sides appealed from the judgment entered after the jury trial. In April 2005, this court affirmed the judgment in part, reversed it in part and remanded the matter for a new trial on certain claims.[3] Up to this point, petitioner had not filed a peremptory challenge under section 170.6.
Upon remand, the case was assigned to the same judge who had presided over the September 2003 trial. Petitioner filed a motion to disqualify the judge under section 170.6. The trial court granted the motion and the case was reassigned to another judge. The case was reassigned two more times for reasons not related to any action by the parties. Petitioner filed a second motion under section 170.6, attempting to challenge the fourth judge assigned to the case after remand. Real parties in interest did not oppose the motion. The trial court denied the motion on the ground petitioner had â€
