Jolie v. Superior Court
66 Cal.App.5th 1025
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2021Background
- Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt jointly selected retired Judge John W. Ouderkirk as a privately compensated temporary judge for their family law matter; initial disclosures (2017–2018) identified multiple past privately compensated matters involving Pitt’s counsel (Lance Spiegel) and some involving Jolie’s prior counsel.
- Between 2019 and 2020 Judge Ouderkirk accepted additional privately compensated matters (Merade and Hankey) and had an extended role in Levitan; those new or extended matters were not voluntarily disclosed to Jolie or her new counsel while the Jolie/Pitt case remained pending.
- Jolie’s new counsel (Samantha Bley DeJean) requested updated disclosures in July 2020; Ouderkirk and his ADR provider (ARC) supplied details only after inquiry; Jolie asked for recusal on August 7, 2020 and filed a verified statement of disqualification the same month.
- The assigned superior court judge (Larsh) denied disqualification on November 16, 2020 as untimely and held the later disclosures would not cause a reasonable person to doubt impartiality.
- The Court of Appeal granted Jolie’s writ petition, held the statement was timely, found Ouderkirk violated continuing disclosure obligations (rule 2.831(d) and canon 6), and concluded that the nondisclosure plus the recently renewed professional relationships might lead an objective person to reasonably doubt his impartiality; the superior court’s order was vacated and Ouderkirk was ordered disqualified.
Issues
| Issue | Jolie's Argument | Pitt/Ouderkirk's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of disqualification filing | Jolie filed promptly after learning of previously undisclosed 2019–2020 matters; thus timely. | Denial because earlier 2017–2018 disclosures put Jolie on notice; challenge was untimely. | Timely — new facts learned in July 2020 triggered a prompt challenge; no forfeiture. |
| Continuing duty and timing of disclosures by a temporary judge | Canon 6 and rule 2.831(d) require ongoing, prompt disclosures “as soon as practicable”; Ouderkirk failed to disclose new matters until asked. | Ouderkirk: disclosure is required only during appointment and was made before termination; timing flexible. | Judge must disclose matters "as soon as practicable" after learning them; Ouderkirk breached that duty. |
| Effect of nondisclosure on appearance of impartiality | Failure to timely disclose new, repeat-player relationships with Pitt’s counsel could lead a reasonable person to doubt impartiality. | Pitt: incremental increase in cases is immaterial; prior disclosures and counsel familiarity defeat appearance claims. | Held for Jolie — combining renewed relationships and the nondisclosure satisfies the objective “might reasonably entertain a doubt” standard; disqualification required. |
| Standard of appellate review for recusal/disclosure issues | De novo review where facts undisputed and legal standard is objective. | Pitt urged abuse-of-discretion deferential review (citing Alvarez). | De novo review applied to the mixed question here (undisputed facts + objective legal standard). |
Key Cases Cited
- Haworth v. Superior Court, 50 Cal.4th 372 (Cal. 2010) (de novo review for disclosure questions and assessment under an objective reasonable-person standard)
- Honeycutt v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 25 Cal.App.5th 909 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) (strict, unforgiving disclosure rules for arbitrators; failure to disclose can vacate awards)
- Wechsler v. Superior Court, 224 Cal.App.4th 384 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (no per se disqualification for nondisclosure; appearance-of-bias analysis is objective)
- People v. Alvarez, 14 Cal.4th 155 (Cal. 1996) (general rule describing appellate review of recusal motions)
- Dornbirer v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., 166 Cal.App.4th 831 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (initial disclosure sufficiency and waiver principles in the neutral-disclosure context)
- Benjamin, Weill & Mazer v. Kors, 195 Cal.App.4th 40 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (repeat-player concerns justify ongoing disclosure obligations to protect process integrity)