Secure Capital v. Sup. Ct.
Filed 6/14/06 Secure Capital v. Sup. Ct. CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
SECURE CAPITAL, INC., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY, Respondent; RONALD CUNNING, Real Party In Interest. | G036024 (Super. Ct. No. 654526 ) O P I N I O N |
Original proceedings; petition for a writ of mandate/prohibition to challenge an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, David McEachen, Judge. Petition granted.
Law Offices of Ted Mann and Lewis T. Mann III for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Floratos, Loll & Devine and William A. Floratos for Real Party in Interest.
THE COURT:*
Petitioner seeks extraordinary writ relief after the trial court accepted its peremptory challenge and reassigned the action below to a second judge, Judge David McEachen, following which Judge McEachen rejected petitioner's peremptory challenge and the reassignment of the case to him, and transferred the case back to the original challenged judge, Judge Michael Brenner. We conclude Judge McEachen abused his discretion when he transferred the case back to Judge Brenner, and Judge Brenner abused his discretion upon denying petitioner's second Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6 peremptory challenge.[1] Petitioner is entitled to a peremptory writ of mandate in the first instance.
I
Plaintiff and judgment creditor Ronald Cunning filed an ex parte application for a temporary restraining order (TRO) preventing defendant Lloyd Myles Rucker and his alter egos from disposing of real and personal property. Judge Michael Brenner granted the TRO, which included Secure Capital, Inc., as an alter ego of Rucker's. Secure Capital filed a section 170.6 peremptory challenge to Judge Brenner's assignment in the action.[2] Judge Brenner referred the matter to the acting presiding judge of the superior court.
Acting Presiding Judge Nancy Wieben Stock ruled: â€