Palomar Health v. Super. Ct. CA4/1

Filed 8/28/20 Palomar Health v. Super. Ct. CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

PALOMAR HEALTH, D077802

Petitioner, (San Diego County Super. Ct. No. 37-2020-00014034-CU-WT- v. CTL)

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY,

Respondent;

TERRI WIEDRE,

Real Party in Interest.

ORIGINAL PORCEEDING in mandate. Katherine A. Bacal, Judge. Petition granted. Fisher & Phillips and David E. Amaya, Megan E. Walker, and Kevonna Ahmad for petitioner. No appearance for respondent. Shegerian and Associates and Carney Shegerian for real party in interest.

Palomar Health petitions for a writ commanding the superior court to grant a motion to disqualify the judge assigned to the civil action filed against it and others by Terri Wiedre. We grant the petition. BACKGROUND Wiedre sued Palomar Health and others in superior court for damages for employment discrimination, wrongful discharge, and other torts. The case was assigned for all purposes to a judge. On July 28, 2020, as its first appearance in the action, Palomar Health filed a motion to disqualify the judge (also called a peremptory challenge). (Code Civ. Proc., § 170.6.) The motion was in the form prescribed by statute (id., § 170.6, subd. (a)(6)), listed Palomar Health as the entity making the motion, checked the box for a party, and was signed under penalty of perjury by Palomar Health’s attorney, David E. Amaya. On July 29, the judge denied the motion because the “declaration [was] not signed by declarant (Palomar Health).” On July 31, Amaya submitted a second form motion to disqualify the judge, listing himself as the entity making the motion, checking the box for an attorney, and signing the form under penalty of perjury. The judge denied the motion and wrote on the order, “only one motion per side & untimely.” Palomar Health promptly petitioned this court for a writ directing the superior court to vacate the order denying the July 31 motion and to enter a new order granting it and requested a stay of further proceedings in the superior court until this court ruled on the petition. (Code Civ. Proc., § 170.3, subd. (d).) We granted the stay, notified the parties that we were considering issuing a peremptory writ in the first instance, and invited Wiedre to file a response to the petition. (Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 178-180.) Wiedre responded that she did not oppose the relief that Palomar had requested.