Court Opinion

ID: 9916335
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-09 19:03:35.209675+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:04.255864
License: Public Domain

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                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or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

                                        2
responses . . . does not require a[n] . . . evaluation of evidence that relates
directly to the merits of the case. Motions to compel responses (or for a
protective order) instead involve only the resolution of issues related to the
propriety and adequacy of the discovery requests and responses and the
parties’ conduct in the discovery process. [Citations.]” (Id. at p. 884.) The
superior court docket included in the petition’s exhibits does not reveal any
other rulings by Judge Treat involving a determination of contested factual
issues related to the merits of the case.
      In accordance with our notification to the parties that we might do so,
we will direct issuance of a peremptory writ in the first instance. (See Palma
v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 177–180.) While
invited to do so, real parties in interest initially, and respondent
subsequently, declined to file responses to the petition. Petitioner’s right to
relief is obvious under settled principles of law, and no useful purpose would
be served by issuance of an alternative writ, further briefing, and oral
argument. (Ng v. Superior Court (1992) 4 Cal.4th 29, 35; see Lewis v.
Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1232, 1236–1237, 1240–1241; see also
Brown, Winfield & Canzoneri, Inc. v. Superior Court (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1233,
1240–1244.)
      Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue, commanding respondent to
vacate its November 29, 2023 order denying petitioner’s 170.6 challenge as to
Judge Treat and to enter a new and different order granting disqualification
and assigning another judge to this case.
      This opinion shall be final as to this court five days after its filing.
(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.490(b)(2)(A).) Petitioner is entitled to recover
costs. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.493(a).)

                                         3