Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 12 and David Lanham sought a writ of prohibition to prevent Judge Kakita from hearing a preliminary injunction motion. The underlying dispute involved allegations by Herzog Contracting Corporation that Lanham unlawfully interfered with their work. The central legal issue revolved around the timeliness of the defendants' challenge to Judge Kakita under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6, considering local trial court delay reduction rules. The court ruled that local rules granting a 10-day period to file such challenges were applicable, allowing the challenge despite the defendants' participation in an ex parte temporary restraining order (TRO) hearing. The court emphasized that the TRO hearing did not involve contested factual issues, thus not barring the challenge. The decision underscores the flexibility granted to project trial courts under Government Code Section 68612 to manage litigation processes efficiently. Ultimately, the writ of prohibition was granted, affirming the defendants' right to challenge Judge Kakita within the specified timeframe.
Legal Issues Addressed
Application of Local Trial Court Delay Reduction Rulessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that Local Rule 1104.1 provided a legitimate procedural requirement, allowing defendants to challenge the judge within 10 days of their appearance, overriding the master calendar rule.
Reasoning: Local Rule 1104.1 requires challenges under section 170.6 against a project judge to be made within 10 days of a defendant's appearance.
Government Code Section 68612 and Local Procedural Flexibilitysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court acknowledged that project trial courts have the authority to adopt procedures that may shorten statutory timeframes to enhance efficiency, as permitted by Government Code Section 68612.
Reasoning: The Government Code, particularly sections 68603, 68608, and 68612, supports this flexibility, allowing project trial courts to deviate from established rules and potentially from statutory provisions to achieve the goals of the Act.
Impact of Ex Parte Hearings on Judicial Challengessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Participation in an ex parte TRO hearing does not preclude a timely challenge under Section 170.6, as such hearings do not resolve contested facts.
Reasoning: Participation in the TRO does not bar asserting a timely challenge if the hearing did not involve contested fact issues.
Timeliness of Judicial Challenges under Code of Civil Procedure Section 170.6subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that defendants had a 10-day window to challenge the judge's assignment under Section 170.6, which was not waived by participating in an ex parte TRO hearing.
Reasoning: The court concludes that these local rules govern the timing of such challenges, affirming that the defendants had a 10-day window to file their challenge, which was not forfeited by their participation in an ex parte hearing during that period.