If You Shoot At The King, Best Not To Miss.

On March 18, 2013, the clerk of court notified the parties their case was assigned to a certain judge. On April 3, counsel for one of the parties faxed an affidavit of prejudice concerning that judge pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6 to the court’s “central fax filing office.” On May 14, counsel inquired about the affidavit and was informed it was lost. Counsel applied to the judge for a nunc pro tunc order deeming the affidavit filed as of April 3. The judge denied the application, stating: “Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure [section] 170.6, the motion shall be made to the assigned judge or to the presiding judge. Fax-filing to the clerk’s office is insufficient.” In the petition for extraordinary relief, the Court of Appeal agreed with the trial judge, stating the challenge was improper because it was not made to the assigned judge, or presiding judge. (Jack Fry v. Sup. Ct. (Cal. Ap.. Second Dist., Div. 1; December 19, 2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 475.)