California Supreme Court Watch

#23-171 North American Title Co., Inc. v. Superior Court, S280752. (F084913; 91 Cal.App.5th 948; Fresno County Superior Court; 07CECG01169.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal issued a writ of mandate in a civil action. This case presents the following issues: (1) Is the requirement that a party seeking to disqualify a trial judge for alleged lack of impartiality file a verified statement of disqualification “at the earliest practicable opportunity” subject to waiver or forfeiture? (2) Did the Court of Appeal err in concluding that the trial judge’s challenged statements did not qualify as expressions of the court’s views on issues pending before it in the proceeding?

Petition for review granted: 8/30/2023

Case fully briefed: 12/03/2023

Cause argued and submitted: 9/04/2024

Opinion filed: Judgment reversed: 10/28/2024

See the Court of Appeal Opinion.

See the Petition for Review.

See the Oral Argument.

See the California Supreme Court Opinion.  (North American Title Co., Inc. v. Superior Court (2024) 17 Cal.5th 155.)

“We granted review to decide whether the nonwaiver provision [in Code of Civil Procedure section 170.3, subdivision (b)(2), governing the disqualification of judges] precludes application of the timeliness requirement [in subdivision (c)(1)] when a party alleges that a judge is disqualified due to bias or prejudice concerning a party. The Court of Appeal held that it does….

We disagree with the Court of Appeal’s interpretation of the statute. It conflates the concepts of waiver and forfeiture, and it extends the statute’s prohibition on waiver to scenarios where forfeiture based on failure to comply with the timeliness requirement may properly be found….

We therefore hold section 170.3(c)(1)’s timeliness requirement — that a statement of disqualification filed by a party ‘shall be presented at the earliest practicable opportunity’ — applies even when the alleged basis for disqualification is that ‘[t]he judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party’ (§ 170.3, subd. (b)(2)(A)). On this basis, we reverse the Court of Appeal’s judgment and remand the case for that court to consider in the first instance whether the statement of disqualification filed by North American Title Company (Petitioner) was timely.”

Chief Justice Guerrero authored the opinion of the Court, in which Justices Corrigan, Liu, Kruger, Groban, Jenkins, and Evans concurred.

In the news:  Challenge to Judge Not Always Subject to Time Constraints, Metropolitan News-Enterprise (May 23, 2023).