BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1894|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
CONSENT
Bill No: AB 1894
Author: Monning (D)
Amended: 6/10/10 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 4-0, 6/22/10
AYES: Corbett, Harman, Hancock, Leno
NO VOTE RECORDED: Walters
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 73-0, 4/22/10 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Judges: disqualification
SOURCE : California Defense Counsel
Consumer Attorneys of California
DIGEST : This bill extends, for civil cases only, the
time period for making a motion to disqualify a judge from
10 to 15 days. This bill also provides that a party making
a motion to disqualify a judge must serve notice on all
parties no later than five days after making the motion.
ANALYSIS : Existing law provides that a judge has a duty
to decide any proceeding in which he/she is not
disqualified, and provides that a judge shall be
disqualified in certain instances. (Sections 170 and 170.1
of the Code of Civil Procedure [CCP])
Existing law provides that a judge may not try a civil or
criminal action when it is established that the judge is
CONTINUED
AB 1894
Page
2
prejudiced against a party or attorney or the interest of a
party or attorney appearing in the action or proceeding.
(CCP Section 170.6(a))
Existing law provides that a party or an attorney appearing
in an action may establish this prejudice by an oral or
written motion without notice supported by affidavit or
declaration under penalty of perjury or an oral statement
under oath that the judge is prejudiced against a party or
attorney, or the interest of the party or attorney, so that
the party or attorney cannot or believes he or she cannot
have a fair and impartial trial or hearing before the
judge. (CCP Section 170.6(a))
Existing law specifies that if the motion to disqualify a
judge is duly presented and timely, the judge supervising
the master calendar shall assign another judge to the
matter. A party is limited to one such peremptory
challenge, except as specified. (CCP Section 170.6(a)(3))
Existing law specifies the time period in which a motion to
disqualify a judge must be made and provides that in a
trial that has been assigned to a judge for all purposes,
the motion must be made to the assigned judge or the
presiding judge by a party within 10 days after notice of
the assignment or, if the party has not yet appeared in the
action, then within 10 days of the appearance. (CCP
Section 170.6(a)(2))
This bill extends, for civil cases only, the
above-described time period from 10 days to 15 days for
making a motion to disqualify a judge.
This bill provides that a party to a civil action making a
motion to disqualify a judge shall serve notice on all
parties no later than five days after making the motion.
Existing law, the Trial Court Delay Reduction Act, provides
that, notwithstanding CCP Section 170.6, in direct calendar
courts, challenges to a judge shall be exercised within 15
days of the party's first appearance. (Section 68616(i) of
the Government Code)
This bill repeals this provision.
CONTINUED
AB 1894
Page
3
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 6/23/10)
California Defense Counsel (co-source)
Consumer Attorneys of California (co-source)
Judicial Council of California
California Employment Lawyers Association
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The author writes: "Under the
current law, the time frames prescribed for exercising a
peremptory challenge are included in [Section] 170.6 which
dictates a 10-day time frame in which a party may exercise
a peremptory challenge. Government Code [Section] 68616(i)
is an exception to the rule, and gives parties 15 days to
exercise a peremptory challenge in 'fast track' cases.
However, Gov. Code [Section] 68616(i) was drafted in a way
that has led to a great deal of confusion. This bill will
eliminate that confusion by putting all language regarding
peremptory challenges of judges within [Section] 170.6, and
repealing Gov. Code [Section] 68616(i). In addition,
[Section] 170.6 will allow a 5 day time frame in which an
attorney or party can exercise a peremptory challenge.
This will simplify the law, which will avoid traps for
unwary litigants."
The bill's co-sponsor, Consumer Attorneys of California,
writes that the bill will "require service of notice on all
parties once the peremptory challenge is made. This will
codify already existing practices and ensure that all
parties are fully informed throughout the litigation
process."
California Defense Counsel, the bill's other co-sponsor,
asserts that the bill's clarifications of the time frames
for making a motion to disqualify a judge and the notice
provisions are "common-sense improvements to the law which
will benefit litigants, lawyers, and the courts."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
CONTINUED
AB 1894
Page
4
AYES: Adams, Ammiano, Anderson, Arambula, Bass, Beall,
Bill Berryhill, Tom Berryhill, Blakeslee, Block,
Bradford, Brownley, Buchanan, Carter, Chesbro, Conway,
Cook, Coto, Davis, De La Torre, De Leon, DeVore,
Emmerson, Eng, Evans, Feuer, Fletcher, Fong, Fuentes,
Fuller, Furutani, Gaines, Galgiani, Garrick, Gilmore,
Hagman, Hall, Harkey, Hayashi, Hernandez, Hill, Huber,
Jeffries, Jones, Lieu, Logue, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma,
Mendoza, Monning, Nava, Nestande, Niello, Nielsen, Norby,
V. Manuel Perez, Portantino, Ruskin, Salas, Saldana,
Silva, Skinner, Smyth, Solorio, Audra Strickland,
Swanson, Torlakson, Torres, Torrico, Tran, Villines,
Yamada, John A. Perez
NO VOTE RECORDED: Blumenfield, Caballero, Charles
Calderon, Huffman, Knight, Miller, Vacancy
RJG:mw 6/24/10 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED