Moon v. McFarland

Filed 6/1/06 Moon v. McFarland CA2/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,

Alice E. Altoon, Judge. Dismissed in part, and otherwise affirmed.

A. D. Moon, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Williams Law Group, William A. Brown, Jr., and John M. Williams, Jr., for Defendants and Respondents.

____________________________

This appeal arises out of an action for breach of a commercial lease. The main issue is the validity of the order denying appellant's peremptory challenge of the trial court judge. We conclude that this is not an appealable order, and dismiss that portion of the appeal. We otherwise affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY

Appellant, a commercial landlord, filed a complaint in May 2004 alleging that respondents breached their lease by failing to pay rent. In February 2005, appellant served respondents with subpoenas demanding the production of documents from respondents' financial institutions. Respondents filed a motion to quash the subpoenas and requested monetary sanctions. On March 29, 2005, the case was reassigned to Judge Alice E. Altoon. On April 27, 2005, appellant moved to disqualify Judge Altoon pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6.[1] After a hearing, the trial court denied the motion as untimely and granted respondents' motion to quash the subpoenas and for attorney fees.

Appellant filed a notice of appeal challenging the denial of the peremptory challenge, the grant of respondents' motion to quash appellant's subpoenas, and the award of attorney fees. He also filed a petition for writ of mandate, which was denied.

DISCUSSION

Appellant contends the trial court erred by denying his peremptory challenge to the trial judge pursuant to section 170.6.

The denial of a motion to disqualify the trial judge is not an appealable order. Instead, the exclusive method for reviewing the rejection of a section 170.6 challenge is by a petition for writ of mandate pursuant to section 170.3, subdivision (d). (People v. Webb (1993) 6 Cal.4th 494, 522-523; People v. Hull (1991) 1 Cal.4th 266, 268.) Section 170.3, subdivision (d) provides: â€