Baker v. Civil Service Commission

California Court of Appeal Oct 30, 1975 No. Civ. 46651Published

Before: Kingsley

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a judge is disqualified from ruling on a motion to disqualify themselves under Code of Civil Procedure section 170 if the motion is timely and legally sufficient. Because the appellant's motion was timely, the trial judge lacked jurisdiction to rule on his own disqualification and the subsequent judgment on the merits.

Issues

Whether a judge may rule on a motion to disqualify themselves under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.
Whether the appellant's motion to disqualify the judge was timely filed.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The law does not contemplate that a litigant, not knowing which judge will hear his case, file a mass of motions involving judges who may never be assigned to his case.”

Opinion

KINGSLEY, J.

Appellant Baker was employed by the County of San Luis Obispo as a deputy sheriff". He was dismissed from his job and he appealed his dismissal to the civil service commission. The commission upheld the dismissal.

Appellant filed a petition for a writ of mandate in the superior court and Judge Howard Crandall held a hearing and denied the writ. Appellant then appealed in 2d Civil No. 43182 and, while that appeal was pending,

Rigsby

Civil Service Com.

(1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 696 [115 Cal.Rptr. 490] was handed down by this division.

Based on that decision, the appellate court reversed “. . . for the sole purpose of permitting the trial court to exercise its independent judgment on the evidence and then to determine if the findings of the County Civil Service Commission in this matter are supported by the weight of the evidence and if the Commission’s decision is otherwise in accordance with the law.”

The remittitur was made to San Luis Obispo County Superior Court. That court set it for hearing before Judge Crandall, the same judge who had heard all the earlier proceedings.

On the date set for further proceedings, the appellant served respondent and the trial court with a motion to disqualify Judge Crandall, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 170. The motion was heard and denied by Judge Crandall

[593]

Judge Crandall then reviewed the evidence and prepared findings of fact and conclusions of law. He found that the evidence before the civil service commission supported the charge of wilful disobedience and dishonesty, and that there was no abuse of discretion on the part of the civil service commission in discharging appellant.

Jerry Baker was age 38 in July 1972. He had received a satisfactory rating in the three-year employee evaluation of. his service as a police officer. He was dismissed by the sheriff’s office, and after an appeal, the civil service commission modified the dismissal to a suspension of duty without pay for one month..

Baker v. Civil Service Commission

AI Brief

KINGSLEY, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief