214 Cal. App. 4th 385
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- Pfeiffer v. Entente Design involves a corporate dissolution suit by minority Pfeiffer against Entente Design and majority Arbuckles; case originally assigned for all purposes to Judge Meyer.
- On Nov. 6, 2012, ex parte hearing granted a one-day trial postponement; Meyer stated he would not be available on the trial date and would identify the assigned trial judge later.
- On Nov. 9, 2012, counsel agreed to a bench trial; Meyer indicated Judge Vargas would be available on Nov. 14 and directed counsel to report to Vargas’s courtroom; defense counsel later filed a section 170.6 challenge.
- Vargas denied the challenge as untimely; Pfeiffer filed a petition contending the challenge was timely under the master calendar rule.
- The court held the master calendar rule did not apply because the case was not trial-ready when Meyer transferred it to Vargas, and there was no advance notice Meyer acted as master calendar judge; the superior court’s denial was an abuse of discretion, and a writ directing grant of the 170.6 challenge was issued.
- The decision directs vacating the Nov. 9, 2012 order and granting the 170.6 challenge, with costs to petitioners.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the master calendar rule applies to this transfer | Pfeiffer argues Mayer acted as master calendar judge when transferring to Vargas. | Arbuckles argue either no master calendar rule or proper assignment avoided it. | Master calendar rule does not apply; transfer not made under true master calendar circumstances. |
| Whether the 170.6 challenge was timely | Under master calendar rule, filing timing controls; case should be timely. | Since not a master calendar transfer, general rule may apply. | Challenge timely under the applicable rule due to lack of master calendar notice. |
| Whether advance notice of master calendar status was required | Advance notice was necessary to trigger master calendar rule. | No advance notice shown; parties assumed all-purpose assignment. | No advance notice; master calendar rule not triggered. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Superior Court (Lavi), 4 Cal.4th 1164 (Cal. 1993) (master calendar rule applicability and notice requirements for 170.6)
- Ruiz v. Appellate Division of the Superior Court, 119 Cal.App.4th 282 (Cal. App. 2004) (master calendar rule not applied to certain direct-set transfers without notice)
- Pickett v. Superior Court, 203 Cal.App.4th 887 (Cal. App. 2012) (section 170.6 autonomy and liberal construction)
- D.M. v. Superior Court, 196 Cal.App.4th 879 (Cal. App. 2011) (abuse of discretion standard for untimely 170.6 challenges)
- People v. Escobedo, 35 Cal.App.3d 32 (Cal. App. 1973) (early authority on master calendar timing)
- Zilog, Inc. v. Superior Court, 86 Cal.App.4th 1309 (Cal. App. 2001) (distinction between master calendar and all-purpose assignment)
- Villarruel v. Superior Court, 35 Cal.App.3d 559 (Cal. App. 1973) (timing and transfer considerations for master calendar)