KARLSEN v THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY
Filed 5/30/06
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
M. ALFRED KARLSEN, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; CANNONBALL ACQUISITIONS, Real Party in Interest. | No. B186446 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC290686) |
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS in mandate. Irving S. Feffer and Michael L. Stern, Judges. Petition granted.
Hillel Chodos for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Ronald Lewis Gallant for Real Party in Interest.
We issued an alternative writ to address a problem arising from the trial court's acceptance of a Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6 peremptory challenge filed by petitioner after remand from this court directing the trial court to prepare a statement of decision.[1] We conclude the trial judge erred in accepting the challenge and transferring the matter to a different judge.
FACTS
The underlying action arises out of a commercial transaction between petitioner M. Alfred Karlsen, individually and as a trustee of the M. Alfred Karlsen Professional Corporation Employees' Retirement Trust, and real party in interest Cannonball Acquisitions, a California corporation (Cannonball). Cannonball prevailed in a court trial and petitioner requested a statement of decision. The court directed that Cannonball's counsel prepare the requested statement of decision. No statement of decision was prepared. Nevertheless, over objection of petitioner, the court entered judgment in favor of Cannonball.
On petitioner's appeal, we concluded the judgment had to be reversed and the matter remanded for the trial court to prepare a statement of decision pursuant to section 632 and California Rules of Court, rule 232. On May 5, 2005, we issued an opinion with the following disposition: â€
