Landmark Holding Group, Inc. v. Superior Court

Summary

The California Court of Appeal held that an ex parte proceeding concerning a temporary restraining order does not determine a contested factual issue on the merits. Accordingly, a peremptory challenge under California Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6 may be timely filed after the TRO proceeding and before the preliminary-injunction hearing, subject to the statute's timing requirements. The court directed issuance of a peremptory writ of mandate requiring the superior court to accept the challenge and transfer the matter to another judge.

Holdings

1. An ex parte hearing concerning a temporary restraining order does not bar a later peremptory challenge under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6 because the proceeding does not determine contested factual issues relating to the merits.
2. The peremptory challenge was timely because it was filed after the ex parte TRO proceeding and before the preliminary-injunction hearing, in accordance with the statutory time periods in section 170.6, subdivision (2).

Questions Presented

1. Whether a party may timely file a peremptory challenge under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6 after the judge has presided over an ex parte temporary restraining order proceeding but before the hearing on a preliminary injunction.
2. Whether an ex parte TRO proceeding involves a determination of contested factual issues relating to the merits that bars a later section 170.6 challenge.

Disposition

writ_granted