Ledesma v. Superior Court CA4/2

California Court of Appeal Jul 24, 2015 No. E063604Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a peremptory challenge filed under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6 was timely because it was submitted within 15 days of the petitioner's first appearance in the action.

Issues

Whether a peremptory challenge filed under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6 was timely.

Disposition. Petition granted; peremptory writ issued.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“His peremptory challenge under section 170.6 was filed on May 7, 2015, and was clearly timely.”

“Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue, directing the Superior Court of Riverside County to vacate its order rejecting or denying the peremptory challenge, and to enter a new order accepting the challenge and have the matter assigned to a new judge.”

Filed 7/24/15 Ledesma v. Superior Court CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

RONALD CURTIS LEDESMA,

Petitioner, E063604

v. (Super.Ct.No. RID1501431)

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF OPINION RIVERSIDE COUNTY,

Respondent;

PATRICIA LEDESMA-CARNETT,

Real Party in Interest.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for writ of mandate. Eric Isaac, Temporary

Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Petition is granted.

Best Best & Krieger, and Kira L. Klatchko, for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

No appearance for Real Party in Interest.

In this matter we have reviewed the petition and the record filed therewith, and

invited real party in interest to respond in opposition to the petition. No such response

has been received. As we consider it a matter of settled principles of law, issuance of a

peremptory writ in the first instance is therefore appropriate. (Palma v. U.S. Industrial

Ledesma v. Superior Court CA4/2

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

RONALD CURTIS LEDESMA,

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF OPINION RIVERSIDE COUNTY,

PATRICIA LEDESMA-CARNETT,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISCUSSION

DISPOSITION

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

KING J.

AI Brief