 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Simpson v. Brown11/10/1998
to do so.
Rule 205(6) of the California Rules of Court certainly doesn't qualify. That rule provides that the presiding Judge shall "reassign cases from a department to another department as convenience or necessity requires."
Rule 205(6) manifestly does not allow a trial court presiding Judge to pull a case from a Judge after trial has begun; otherwise it would give presiding Judges license to attempt to affect outcomes by replacing Judges whose rulings they may not like. It was obviously intended as a traffic control or "housekeeping" device to equalize assignments among Judges who may have cases which are "trailing" or about to come to trial. And in any event it certainly cannot justify changing Judges in the case before us, because nothing in the record even remotely shows "convenience" -- much less "necessity." Here, it was manifestly inconvenient to the parties and the court to remove Commissioner Schulte and for Judge Stock to duplicate at least some of the effort that had already been put into the case.
Most dispositively, though, any interpretation of rule 205(6) which would allow a presiding Judge to change Judges after a trial began on mere "convenience" would contravene the state Constitution, which provides that when a member of the bar is sworn as a temporary Judge pursuant to the stipulation of the parties --as was the case here -- he or she "is empowered to act until final determination of the cause." (Cal. Const. art. 6, § 21, emphasis added.) If mere convenience were enough to justify removal of a Judge after trial has begun, the constitutional empowerment of a commissioner to act until final determination could easily be rendered a dead letter. The bottom line is that it was not proper to unilaterally and without cause remove Commissioner Schulte from the case. Accordingly, on remand, we direct that further proceedings be heard before Commissioner Schulte. (Code Civ. Proc., § 170.1, subd. (c) [on its own motion an appellate court may direct, in the interests of Justice, "that further proceedings be heard before a trial Judge other than the Judge whose judgment . . . was reviewed by the appellate court"]; cf. Code Civ. Proc., § 187 [court has all means necessary to carry its jurisdiction into effect by suitable process or mode of proceeding most conformable to spirit of code].)
The Browns will recover their costs on appeal.
WE CONCUR: CROSBY, J. RYLAARSDAM, J.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|