North Am. Title Co. v. Superior Court, 326 Cal. Rptr. 3d 582

The case concerns a wage-and-hour class action filed by employees (Real Parties in Interest) against North American Title Company (Petitioner) in 2007.
The presiding trial judge made comments between 2020 and 2021 suggesting that Petitioner engaged in a corporate "shell game" to evade liability, which Petitioners and another defendant (Doma Title) argued showed judicial bias.
Doma Title filed a timely statement of disqualification based on these comments, which was denied as moot when they were dismissed from the action.
After judgment entered against Petitioner, Petitioner filed its own statement of disqualification citing the same comments, which the trial judge struck as untimely under Code of Civil Procedure § 170.3(c)(1).
The Court of Appeal granted relief, holding that the nonwaiver provision in § 170.3(b)(2) precludes striking for untimeliness where bias or prejudice is alleged, and ordered reinstatement of the disqualification statement. The California Supreme Court granted review.

Issue	Petitioner's Argument	Real Parties' Argument	Held
Application of timeliness requirement (§ 170.3(c)(1)) to bias-based disqualification	Timeliness rule does not apply if bias/prejudice is alleged, due to § 170.3(b)(2) nonwaiver provision	Timeliness still required for party-initiated attempts; nonwaiver only applies to judicial self-disqualification	Timeliness required; nonwaiver applies only to self-disqualification by judge
Scope of "waiver" in § 170.3(b)(2)	Waiver includes both express and implied waiver, such as untimeliness	Waiver in § 170.3(b)(2) refers to express, written waiver, not forfeiture by delay	"Waiver" means express waiver; timeliness failures lead to forfeiture, not waived rights
Whether legislative history supports exemption from timeliness	Legislative intent to bar bias in courts justifies exemption	Legislative history shows intent only to harmonize with judicial conduct rules, which barred waiver only for self-disqualification	Legislative history supports limited scope: only judicial self-disqualification
Policy/practical impacts of exempting bias allegations from timeliness	No gamesmanship risk because truly concerned parties would act promptly; section on previous rulings limits incentives	Allowing untimely claims invites strategic delay, gamesmanship, and disrupts judicial economy	Timeliness rule prevents gamesmanship, encourages prompt resolution

Caminetti v. Pac. Mut. L. Ins. Co., 22 Cal.2d 386 (Cal. 1943) (explains that untimely challenge to a judge results in waiver of disqualification right)
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (U.S. 1993) (distinguishes between waiver (intentional) and forfeiture (failure to timely assert))
People v. Hull, 1 Cal.4th 266 (Cal. 1991) (timeliness in judicial disqualification context is required to prevent gamesmanship)
People v. Lynch, 3 Cal.5th 470 (Cal. 2017) (clarifies distinction between waiver and forfeiture)
Alhusainy v. Superior Court, 143 Cal.App.4th 385 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (timeliness required even for actual bias claims under § 170.3)