McNair v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County
6 Cal. App. 5th 1227
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- McNair sued the NCAA in state court for seven causes of action including libel, slander, interference with prospective economic advantage, and contract-related claims.
- The NCAA exercised an initial peremptory challenge to the trial judge in 2011, triggering reassignment of the case.
- The NCAA then moved to strike under anti-SLAPP; the trial court denied relief, allowing litigation to proceed.
- The appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part, ruling that two defamation claims and some others were not protected, while two claims were; five claims remained for adjudication.
- The NCAA later sought a second post-appeal peremptory challenge under CCP 170.6(a)(2) to the judge who denied the anti-SLAPP motion; the trial court accepted the challenge and disqualified itself, prompting a writ petition.
- The appellate court grants the writ, directing vacatur of the challenged order and removal of the disqualification in light of the statute’s proper interpretation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a second postappeal peremptory challenge is available after reversal of a final judgment | McNair: second challenge нужна only after final-judgment reversal | NCAA: sentence two allows after reversal of final judgment or interim orders | Second challenge only after final-judgment reversal; not after interim order reversal. |
| Whether the statutory language of CCP 170.6(a)(2) is clear and unambiguous | McNair argues plain meaning supports postfinal judgment only | NCAA argues broader reading possible from legislative history | Language is clear; does not extend to interim-order reversals. |
| Whether extraordinary writ relief is appropriate here | McNair suffered prejudice due to abrupt challenge and delays | NCAA contends relief follows ordinary appeal rights | Petition granted; writ appropriate to vacate the challenged order. |
Key Cases Cited
- Peracchi v. Superior Court, 30 Cal.4th 1245 (Cal. 2003) (peremptory bias challenge and appearance of impartiality)
- Casden v. Superior Court, 140 Cal.App.4th 417 (Cal. App. 2006) (second challenge limited, one-challenge general rule with exception)
- Pfeiffer Venice Properties v. Superior Court, 107 Cal.App.4th 761 (Cal. App. 2003) (legislative change to 170.6(a)(2) second challenge)
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, 121 Cal.App.4th 490 (Cal. App. 2004) (statutory language clear, no need for construction)
- Wilcox v. Birtwhistle, 21 Cal.4th 973 (Cal. 1999) (statutory construction when language is clear)
- West Covina Hospital v. Superior Court, 41 Cal.3d 846 (Cal. 1986) (principles of statutory interpretation in 170.6(a)(2) context)
- Griset v. Fair Political Practices Com., 25 Cal.4th 688 (Cal. 2001) (finality of judgments vs. interlocutory actions)