Hayward v. Superior Court, No. A144823 (D1d2 Aug. 3, 2016)
This case—a contentious divorce—is pretty ugly. The parties stipulated to have the case resolved by a private judge, appointed by the family court as a Pro Tem. But things go downhill from there.
Showing posts with label recusal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label recusal. Show all posts
Friday, September 9, 2016
Friday, March 14, 2014
Hail Mary, Fail
Brown v. American Bicycle Group, No. D063268 (D4d1 Mar. 11, 2014)
In the published part of this opinion, the court holds that a trial judge is not required to disclose his ownership of stock in non-party insurance companies just because the defendant is insured. Plaintiff—who first raised the issue in a new trial motion after losing on the merits at trial—waived the objection by failing to seek writ relief after a timely recusal motion. And in any event, the information did not need to be disclosed because it did not suggest any basis for a recusal for cause. The fact that plaintiff claimed that the information might have been material to a decision on whether to file a peremptory strike under Code of Civil Procedure § 170.6 did not merit disclosure. The relevant ethical canons address disclosure of information that might give rise to a cause challenge, not a § 170.6 strike. The court then goes on—as has been happening all week—to resolve some interesting evidence issues in an unpublished part of the opinion.
Affirmed.
In the published part of this opinion, the court holds that a trial judge is not required to disclose his ownership of stock in non-party insurance companies just because the defendant is insured. Plaintiff—who first raised the issue in a new trial motion after losing on the merits at trial—waived the objection by failing to seek writ relief after a timely recusal motion. And in any event, the information did not need to be disclosed because it did not suggest any basis for a recusal for cause. The fact that plaintiff claimed that the information might have been material to a decision on whether to file a peremptory strike under Code of Civil Procedure § 170.6 did not merit disclosure. The relevant ethical canons address disclosure of information that might give rise to a cause challenge, not a § 170.6 strike. The court then goes on—as has been happening all week—to resolve some interesting evidence issues in an unpublished part of the opinion.
Affirmed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)