Syprasert v. Superior Court CA2/3

Filed 2/14/14 Syprasert v. Superior Court CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

ARICH SYPRASERT et al. B253072

Petitioners, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC527441) v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY,

Respondent;

TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE et al.,

Real Parties in Interest.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS in mandate. Rolf Michael Treu, Judge. Petition granted. Brentwood Legal Services, LLP and Steven L. Zelig for Petitioners. Frederick R. Bennett for Respondent. No appearance for Real Parties in Interest.

_________________________

Petitioners Arich Syprasert and Boualirne Syprasert (plaintiffs in the underlying action; hereafter plaintiffs) are seeking a mandate following the order rejecting an affidavit of prejudice (Code Civ. Proc., § 170.6) 1 by Judge Rolf M. Treu. The affidavit was filed on November 21, 2013, immediately after notice that the case was assigned to Judge Treu. On December 3, 2013, Judge Treu rejected the affidavit, finding the signature on the document not in conformity with section 2015.5 2 because counsel for plaintiff, Steven L. Zelig, authorized his secretary to sign the affidavit. This petition was timely filed on December 13, 2013. 3 On January 8, 2014, this court notified the respondent court that the affidavit of prejudice had been improperly rejected because it is well established law that: “If one requests another to sign a document for him and such signature . . . is acknowledged by

1 Statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure. 2 Section 2015.5 provides: “Whenever, under any law of this state or under any rule, regulation, order or requirement made pursuant to the law of this state, any matter is required or permitted to be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the sworn statement, declaration, verification, certificate, oath, or affidavit, in writing of the person making the same (other than a deposition, or an oath of office, or an oath required to be taken before a specified official other than a notary public), such matter may with like force and effect be supported, evidenced, established or proved by the unsworn statement, declaration, verification, or certificate, in writing of such person which recites that it is certified or declared by him or her to be true under penalty of perjury, is subscribed by him or her, and (1), if executed within this state, states the date and place of execution, or (2), if executed at any place, within or without this state, states the date of execution and that it is so certified or declared under the laws of the State of California.” 3 “The determination of the question of disqualification of a judge is not an appealable order and may be reviewed only by a writ of mandate from the appropriate court of appeal sought only by the parties to the proceeding. The petition for the writ shall be filed and served within 10 days of notice to the parties of the decision and only by the parties to the proceeding.” (§ 170.3, subd. (d).) The time limitation applies to all motions to disqualify, including motions seeking disqualification for cause. (People v. Hull (1991) 1 Cal.4th 266, 269-276.)