When 170.6 Challenge To Judge Assigned To Trial Presented, Independent Calendar Court Did Not Function As A Master Calendar Court.

A corporate dissolution action was assigned to one judge for all purposes.  That judge advised counsel he would not be available on the trial date and “would tell them at trial call on November 9 which trial judge would be assigned the case” for trial. On November 9, the court informed counsel the name of the judge who would be trying the case and directed them to report to that judge’s courtroom forthwith, which both counsel did and discussed the case with their newly assigned trial judge. The newly assigned judge ordered them to appear for trial on November 14. Within the next hour after leaving court on November 9, defense counsel filed a Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6, challenge to the newly assigned judge. That afternoon, the new judge’s clerk telephoned defense counsel to inquire why the issue was not raised before either the former or new judge that morning. Defense counsel responded that he had not had an opportunity to discuss the matter with his clients and did not want to raise the possibility of a 170.6 challenge unless he was actually going to file one. The newly assigned judge denied the 170.6 challenge. The appellate court reversed and issued a writ of mandate, noting that “whether the master calendar rule applies depends on whether [the judge assigned for all purposes] was managing a true master calendar when he assigned the case” to another judge for trial, and that this case did not involve a true master calendar assignment because the case was not ready for immediate trial when it was assigned out. Entente Design, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (Leigh A. Pfeiffer) (Cal. App. Fourth Dist., Div. 1;  March 12, 2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 385.