\u201cIf a party does not like a ruling made by a particular judge, blanket abuses of section 170.6 give the party the power to essentially force the presiding judge to reassign the judge or, at a minimum, to sideline the judge from a particularassignment until the party decides that the judge is acceptable,\u201d Justice Joshua Groban wrote, referring to the California Code of Civil Procedure.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe mere threat of blanket abuses could cause litigants to question the impartiality of the judicial system as a whole, as they may be understandably concerned that judges might feel pressure to rule in a particular manner to avoid reassignment,\u201d he added.<\/p>\n
Rather than automatically granting a bid to disqualify a judge based on a sworn statement that they are somehow prejudiced, the opposing side will now have an opportunity to bring a prima facia objection that the motion\u2019s proponent is lodging bad faith blanket challenges against a particular judge.<\/p>\n
While the California Supreme Court reaffirmed its strong disapproval of blanket challenges in 1977, it nevertheless concluded such abuses didn\u2019t violate the separation of powers doctrine because they didn\u2019t substantially impair the exercise of the constitutional jurisdiction of the trial courts, Groban said.<\/p>\n
Nearly 50 years later, however, abuses of the opportunity to automatically disqualify a judge by claiming they are prejudiced \u2014 without having to back up the assertion \u2014 have created an outsized impact on the judiciary\u2019s duty to effectively administer justice, the judge said.<\/p>\n
Not only has the workload of California\u2019s courts expanded dramatically since then, the role of specialty courts like juvenile dependency court and family court has become increasingly prominent.<\/p>\n
\u201cThere have also been countless changes in the law since 1977 that similarly require judicial specialization,\u201d Groban wrote. \u201cBlanket abuses of section 170.6 can materially undermine the effort to assign judges to courtrooms who possess particularized knowledge and training regarding these changes.\u201d<\/p>\n
The case before the California Supreme Court began in 2024 when San Joaquin County Superior Court Judge Erin Guy Castillo admonished a county attorney for purportedly improper conduct.<\/p>\n
In response, the county moved to disqualify Guy Castillo about 325 times in conservatorship cases over a span of less than four months. In the end, the judge had to be reassigned to a different department.<\/p>\n
An individual, only identified by their initials J.O., challenged the county\u2019s disqualification of Guy Castillo, but struck out at the Superior Court and the California Court of Appeals due to the binding 1977 decision by the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n