Imperial Irrigation Dist. v. Superior Court CA4/1

Filed 11/24/20 Imperial Irrigation Dist. v. Superior Court CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

IMPERIAL IRRIGATION D078122 DISTRICT, (Imperial County Super. Ct. Petitioner, No. ECU07980)

v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF IMPERIAL COUNTY,

Respondent;

MICHAEL ABATTI,

Real Party in Interest.

ORIGINAL PORCEEDING in mandate. L. Brooks Anderholt, Judge. Petition granted.

Nossaman LLP and Frederic A. Fudacz, Jennifer L. Meeker, and Gina R. Nicholls for petitioner.

No appearance for respondent.

Musick, Peeler & Garrett LLP, Theodore A. Chester, Jr., and Cheryl A. Orr; Caldarelli Hejmanowski Page & Leer LLP, Lee E. Hejmanowski and Marisa Janine-Page for real party in interest.

Imperial Irrigation District (the District) petitions for a writ commanding the superior court to grant a postappeal motion to disqualify the judge assigned to a civil action. We grant the petition. BACKGROUND Michael Abatti filed a petition for writ of mandate in the superior court to invalidate a water distribution plan adopted by the District. The court granted the petition. The court also issued a postjudgment order awarding Abatti costs and attorney fees. The parties separately appealed the judgment and postjudgment order. This court affirmed the judgment in part, reversed it in part, and remanded the matter with directions to enter the proper judgment. The Supreme Court of California denied Abatti’s petition for review, and this court issued its remittitur. In the meantime, this court reversed the order awarding Abatti costs and attorney fees and “remanded for consideration of new fee and costs requests in light of the new judgment.” Abatti did not petition the Supreme Court for review, and this court issued its remittitur. Fifteen days after issuance of the remittitur in the appeal from the order awarding costs and attorney fees, the District filed a “motion for and declaration in support of peremptory challenge” by which it sought to disqualify the judge who had entered the judgment and postjudgment order that were reversed on appeal, on the ground the judge was prejudiced against the District and the District would not receive a fair and impartial trial or