Quality Control Products International v. Superior Court CA1/5

Filed 1/9/24 Quality Control Products International v. Superior Court CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

QUALITY CONTROL PRODUCTS INTERNATIONAL LTD., Petitioner, v. A169261 THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, (Contra Costa County Respondent; Super. Ct. No. CIVMSC20-00948) DEX PRODUCTS, INC., et al., Real Parties in Interest.

THE COURT:* Petitioner Quality Control Products International Ltd. seeks writ relief from the denial of its Code of Civil Procedure section 170.61 challenge (170.6 challenge) directed to Judge Charles S. Treat. We grant the petition by way of this memorandum opinion because “[t]he Courts of Appeal should dispose of causes that raise no substantial issues of law or fact by memorandum or other abbreviated form of opinion.” (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1.)

* Before Jackson, P. J.; Simons, J.; and Burns, J.

1 All further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.

1

On November 7, 2023, respondent superior court notified the parties that this civil matter was being reassigned for all purposes to Judge Treat. On November 20, 2023, petitioner filed a 170.6 challenge against Judge Treat. Petitioner’s challenge was denied on November 29, 2023, with the notation that it was “untimely, and court already made rulings.” This petition was timely filed 10 days later, on December 11, 2023. (§§ 170.3, subd. (d), 12a.) We review respondent’s ruling de novo. (Andrew M. v. Superior Court (2020) 43 Cal.App.5th 1116, 1124.) Plainly, petitioner’s challenge was timely filed “within 15 days after notice of the all purpose assignment,” as required by section 170.6, subdivision (a)(2), since such notice was provided on November 7, 2023, and the 170.6 challenge was filed 13 days later, on November 20, 2023. Respondent’s reference to the “court [having] already made rulings” was also not a basis for denying petitioner’s 170.6 challenge. Section 170.6, subdivision (a)(2) provides in relevant part: “The fact that a judge . . . has presided at, or acted in connection with, a pretrial conference or other hearing, proceeding, or motion prior to trial, and not involving a determination of contested fact issues relating to the merits, shall not preclude the later making of the motion provided for in this paragraph at the time and in the manner herein provided.” Petitioner acknowledges that, prior to the filing of its 170.6 challenge, Judge Treat, on November 9, 2023, ruled on two discovery motions, a motion for protective order and a motion to compel further responses to discovery. However, rulings on discovery matters do not amount to “a determination of contested fact issues relating to the merits” under section 170.6, subdivision (a)(2). (Swift v. Superior Court (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 878, 883–884.) “A motion to compel discovery