ep COPY RMI CONE QR INAL TILED LSrangles Suet 2" DEC 28 sve OfficedClerk sot A. Clarker Executive Offic : py L- Pastel DEDUY SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES. PAULA LUA, CASE NO. $C109295 Plaintiff, v, ORDER STRIKING SECOND CAREER COLLEGES OF AMERICA, et al. STATEMENT OF Defendants DISQUALIFICATION On July 6, 2011, plaintiff" filed a pleading as a statement of disqualification for cause, contending that the assigned judge is biased. The statement was based upon the complaining Party's opinion and dissatisfaction with the judge’s rulings. ‘The court struct that statement of disqu: cation pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 170.4(b) on the grounds that the Pleading demonstrated on its face no legal grounds for disqualification. In that order the court explained that a statement of disqualification cannot be based upon a party's opinion or a contention that the court has ruled incorrectly or unfairly. The court further explained that the exclusive remedy for seeking review of that order and determination was a timely petition for writ of mandate in the Court of Appeal pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 170.3(d) Thereafter, plaintiff filed a Writ of Mandate. On July 15, 2011, the Court of Appeal denied the plaintiffs request for an immediate stay and stated that "there is no showing of an abuse of diseretion by respondent court, and there is no record sufficient for appellate review." 1 Order Striking Statement of DisqualificationOn December 27. 2011. led a second statement of disqualification based upon the same ‘grounds. a contention that the court improperly struck her first statement of disqualification, her opinion, and a contention that the court's rulings and findings are incorrect, unfair, and wrongly decided. Such repetitive statements of disqualification are not permitted, and the Legislature has directed judges against whom they are filed to strike them. See Code of Civil Procedure section 170.4(c\3). In addition. the second statement of disqualification like the first statement, is based upon plaintiff's opinion, and a contention that the court’s rulings and findings are incorrect, unfair, and wrongly decided, The second statement is also stricken pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 170.4(b), on the grounds that it demonstrates on its face no legal grounds for disqualification. Plaintiff may not file a further or third statement of disqualification on these grounds unless and until she successfully obtains review of this order by a timely petition for ‘writ of mandate pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 170.3(4). Violation of this directive may result in the imposition of sanctions. A party's belief as to a judge's bias and prejudice is irrelevant and not controlling in a motion to disqualify for cause, as the test applied is an objective one. United Farm Workers of America v. Superior Court (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 97, 104; Stanford University v. Superior Court (1985) 173 Cal. App.3d 403, 408 ("the litigants’ necessarily partisan views do not provide the applicable frame of reference.) Code of Civil Procedure §170.3(c)(1) requires that the disqualification statement set forth “the facts constituting the grounds” for disqualification of the judge. Mere conclusions of the pleader are insufficient, Jn re Morelli (1970) 11 Cal.App.3d 819, 843; Urias v. Harris Farms, Inc. (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 415, 426. Rulings and findings do not constitute a valid basis for disqualification. As stated by the California Supreme Court in People v, Guerra (2006) 37 Cal. 4th 1067, 1112, trial court's numerous rulings against a party--even when erroneous--do not establish a charge of judicial bias, especially when they are subject to review.” McEwen v. Occidental Life Ins. Co. (1916) 172 Cal. 6, 11 (erroneous rulings, even when numerous and continuous, are not grounds for bias Order Striking Statement of Disqualification6 or prejudice, nor are "judges' expressions of opinion uttered in what he conceives to be the discharge of his judicial duty"). See also, Code of Civil Procedure §170.2(b), which provides with certain exceptions not here applicable: “It is not grounds for disqualification that the judge {h]as in any capacity expressed at view on a legal or factual issue presented in the proceeding...” Cf. California Constitution Article VI, § 10 which provides in pertinent part \sith regard to all courts: “The court may make such comment on the evidence and the testimony and credibility of any witness as in its opinion is necessary for the proper determination of the cause.”. A party’s remedy for an erroneous ruling is not a motion to disqualify, but rather review by appeal or writ, See Ryan v. Welle (1948) 87 Cal.App.2d 888, 893: “[A] wrong opinion on the law of a case does not disqualify judge, nor is it evidence of bias or prejudice.” Otherwise, the court said, “no judge who is reversed by’a higher court on any ruling or decision would ever be qualified to proceed further in the particular case.” The proper remedy, of course was an appeal from the erroneous ruling. See 2 Witkin, California Procedure (4" ed.), Courts, Nondisqualitying Opinions, p. 157. This rule also applies to rulings limiting argument. A trial judge is not required to listen to oral arguments in support of a motion, but may, in his or her discretion, decide a motion solely on the basis of the filed papers. Muller v. Muller (1956) 141 Cal.App.2d 722, 731. Cf, Collins v, Nelson (1940) 41 Cal.App.2d 107, 113 (court has discretion to refuse to hear argument on motion for new trial); Morel v, Simonian (1930) 103 Cal. App. 490, 495 (no right to argue a motion for new trial); Sullivan v, Dunnigan (1959) 171 Cal.App.2d 662, 669 (no error in denial of oral argument in support of motion for nonsuit); Haldane v. Haldane (1962) 210 Cal. App.2d 587, 593 (motion for marital support properly decided on basis only of paperwork); Ensher, Alexander & Barsoom v. Ensher (1964) 225 Cal, App.2d 381 (no error in refusing to hear argument on plaintiff's motion to reopen). Conclusion Since the second statement of disqualification is an impermissible repetitive statement, and on its face discloses no legal grounds for disqualification, it is ordered stricken pursuant to Order Striking Statement of Disqualification