Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
6Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
KADDO REFUSES TO STEP DOWN & HAS MY MOTION STRIKEN FROM THE RECORD

KADDO REFUSES TO STEP DOWN & HAS MY MOTION STRIKEN FROM THE RECORD

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,076 |Likes:
Published by AJ Weberman
Judge Kaddo refuses to recuse himself in Kurtz v. Weberman and denies ever having represented the PLO, denies having connections to the Hezboallah calling the information "hearsay." He has by Motion Striken from the Record because it contains too many damning facts about him,
Judge Kaddo refuses to recuse himself in Kurtz v. Weberman and denies ever having represented the PLO, denies having connections to the Hezboallah calling the information "hearsay." He has by Motion Striken from the Record because it contains too many damning facts about him,

More info:

Published by: AJ Weberman on Feb 09, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

11/04/2012

pdf

text

original

 
1
2
3
4
5
67
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1516
17
1819
20
21
22
23
24
25
2627
28
JAN
1 9
2010
*;
A-
CLARKe,
exECUTilf,
OFFICER
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIAFOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
GARY
KURTZ,
Plaintiff,
v.A.
J.
WEBERMANDefendant.
CASE NO.
LC084486ORDER STRIKING STATEMENTOFDISQUALIFICATION
On
January
12, 2010
Defendant
filed
a pleading captioned as a
"Peremptory Challenge."
Insofar
as Defendant may have intended the document to be a motion to
disqualify
under section
170.6
of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is untimely and denied. Moreover, "no party or attorney
shall
be permitted to make more than one such motion in any one
action
or special proceedingpursuant to this section." Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6(a)(3). Defendant has alreadyexercised a
170.6
challenge in this matter as to Judge Michael
Harwin.
Notwithstanding what appears to be a captioning error, Defendant clearly intended thepleading
to be a
statement
of
disqualification
for
cause
filed
pursuant
to
Code
of
Civil Proceduresection
170.3(c)(l).
The court treats the pleading as such. The unsigned pleading is not
verified
as
required by the Code, was not properly served, is untimely, and demonstrates on its
face
no
legal
grounds for
disqualification.
Accordingly, it is stricken pursuant to Code of CivilProcedure §170.4, subdivision (b).
1
Order Striking Statement of Disqualification
 
10
11
12
13
14
151617
1819
20
21
22
23
2425
26
27
28
1. The statement of disqualification is not verified.
Astatementofdisqualification mustbesignedandverified. CodeofCivil Procedure§170.3(c)(l);Code of Civil Procedure § 2015.5. The object of verification is to assure good
faith
in
the
averments
or
statements
of the
party.
H.G. Bittleston
Law and
Collection
Agency
v.
Howard
(1916)
172
Cal.
357, 360;
Silcox
v.
Lang
(1889)
78
Call
18,
122.
Defendant's
unsigned
pleading may not be
considered
verified
in
accordance with
the
provisions
of
C.C.P.
section446(a)
as
required
by
C.C.P. section
170.3(c)(l)
and
section
2015.5.
2.
The
statement
of
disqualification
was not
properly served.
Code
of
Civil
Procedure
§
170.3, subdivision
(c)(l)
requires that
the
statement
of
disqualification "be personally served on the judge alleged to be disqualified, or on his or her
clerk,
provided that the judge is present in the courthouse or in chambers." In this instance there
was
no
personal service
on
either
the
judge
or the
clerk.
Defendant's
proof
of
service
filed
with
the
pleading indicates service by U.S. Mail.
3. The
statement
of disqualification is
untimely.
Code
of
Civil
Procedure
§
170, subdivision
(c)(l)
requires
that
any
statement
of
disqualification must "be presented at the earliest practical opportunity
after
discovery of the
facts
constituting the ground for disqualification." While no specific time period is set
forth
in
Code
of Civil Procedure section 170.3(c), beyond the requirement that statements be
filed
at the
earliest
practical opportunity
after
discovery
of the
facts
upon which
the
grounds
are
based,
it is
clear
that the time period is very short. For example, review of a decision such as this one must
be
perfected within
10
days.
See
Code
of
Civil Procedure section 170.3, subdivision (d).Here,
the
most recent hearing giving
rise to
Defendant's allegation
was on
December
8,
2009.
The
statement
of
disqualification
is
unsupported
by any
justification
that
would
warrant
a
month-long delay in filing. Under these circumstances, the pleading is untimely. By not
filing
atimely motion to disqualify, objections to the assigned judge are waived.
In re
Steven
O.
(1991)229 Cal.App.3d46.
4. Alleged comments attributed
to the
court
are not
disqualifying.
Defendant's
stated grounds
for
disqualification include alleged comments made
by the
2
Order Striking Statement of Disqualification
 
,
1
court
at
hearing
on
December
8,
2009.
The
facts
and
circumstances prompting
a
challenge
for
2 cause must be evaluated in the context of the entire proceeding and not based solely uponisolated
conduct
or remarks.
Flier v. Superior Court
(1994) 23 Cal.App.4th
165.
Where bias isasserted,
"[I]t
mustbe
more than
a
quick flare-up
or
isolated occurrence."
The Rutter
Group,
Civil
Trials
and
Evidence,
page 3-13, citing
In re Buckley
(1973) 10 Cal.3d 237. Evenassuming
that
the statements alleged to have been made by the court were made verbatim asstatedin Defendant's pleading, the court's statement was harmless. A party's
hypersensitive
overreaction to them does not provide a
basis
for disqualification. The test is an objective one,
not
a
subjective
one.
This
objective test
requires
consideration
of the
facts
from
the
standpoint
10
of a
"well-informed,
thoughtful,
and objective
observer,"
and not
that
of a
"hypersensitive,
11
cynical,andsuspicious
person."
United
States
v.
Jordan
(5
th
Cir. 1995)49F.3d 152, 156.
12
A
party's
or an
attorney's belief
as to a
judge's
bias
and
prejudice
is
irrelevant
and not
13
controlling
in a
motion
to
disqualify
for
cause,
as the
test applied
is an
objective one.
United
14
Farm
Workers
of
America
v.
Superior Court
(1985)
170
Cal.App.3d
97,
104;
Stanford
15
University
v.
Superior Court
(1985) 173
Cal.App.3d
403, 408 ("the litigants' necessarily partisan
16
views do not provide the applicable
frame
of reference.") Mere conclusions of the pleader are
17
insufficient.
In re
Morelli
(1970)
11
Cal.App.3d 819, 843;
Urias
v.
Harris Farms, Inc.
(1991)18
234
Cal.App.3d
415, 426.
19
5. The
pleading does not,
on its
face, demonstrate lawful grounds
for
20
disqualification.
21
Bias
and
prejudice
are
never impled.
Gai v.
City
ofSelma
(1998)
68
Cal.App.4th 213,22 219: '"Bias and prejudice are never implied and must be established by clear averments."23
[Citation.]
Indeed, a party's unilateral perception of an appearance of
bias
cannot be a ground24 fordisqualification unlesswe arereadytotolerateasysteminwhich disgruntledordilatory25 litigants can wreak havoc with the orderly administration of dispute-resolving tribunals.'
26
[Citations.]"
Statements of disqualification cannot be based upon hearsay or other inadmissible
27
evidence. See,
United Farmworkers
of
America,
AFL-CIO v.
Superior Court
(1985)
170
28
Cal.App.3d 97,
note
6 at
106.
They may not be based upon inadmissible information
from
theOrder Striking Statement
of Disqualification

Activity (6)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
abcwrite liked this
abcwrite liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->