Wechsler v. Superior Court
224 Cal. App. 4th 384
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Wechsler filed a dissolution action in 2006;
- In 2010, Commissioner Ratekin was assigned to postjudgment custody/support matters;
- Counsel for Kimberly disclosed Ratekin would officiate at her wedding in Dec. 2013;
- Kenneth moved to disqualify Ratekin under §170.1(a)(6)(A)(iii) on appearance of impartiality grounds;
- The trial court denied disqualification and this writ petition followed;
- Wechsler concluded Ratekin’s wedding officiant role did not require automatic disqualification under the circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does officiating at a lawyer’s wedding create appearance of partiality under §170.1(a)(6)(A)(iii)? | Kenneth argues automatic disqualification. | Ratekin argues officiating is a ministerial act with no inherent bias; disclosure suffices. | No automatic disqualification; disclosure required but not required to recuse. |
| What standard applies to a §170.1 appearance-of-partiality challenge when facts are undisputed? | De novo review should apply to these facts. | Trial court’s factual findings should stand unless incorrect. | De novo review applies when undisputed facts are presented. |
| Is there a close personal relationship between Ratekin and O'Neill that would mandate disqualification? | There was a personal closeness that could impair impartiality. | No close personal relationship; only professional contacts. | No close personal relationship; no per se disqualification. |
| Did Carter control the result for similar wedding-officiation scenarios? | Carter supports disqualification where significant personal ties exist. | Carter rejected automatic bias finding; officiating is not inherently biasing. | Carter supports no disqualification here given attenuated contacts. |
| Does required disclosure under Cal. Code of Judicial Ethics affect outcome? | Disclosure alone does not cure appearance of partiality. | Disclosure helps assess potential disqualification; not dispositive. | Disclosure required; but not dispositive to mandate disqualification. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Carter, 36 Cal.4th 1215 (Cal. 2005) (appearance of partiality not shown by officiating wedding in similar context)
- Haworth v. Superior Court, 50 Cal.4th 372 (Cal. 2010) (objective standard for appearance of impartiality; not hypersensitive observer)
- United Farm Workers of America v. Superior Court, 170 Cal.App.3d 97 (Cal. App. 1985) (reasonable observer standard for impartiality; not radical distrust)
- In re Kensington International, Ltd., 368 F.3d 289 (3d Cir. 2004) (public confidence in judiciary; appearance standard guidance)
- Flier v. Superior Court, 23 Cal.App.4th 165 (Cal. App. 1994) (application of appearance-of-partiality standard; independent review context)
- Mt. Holyoke Homes, L.P. v. Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell, LLP, 219 Cal.App.4th 1299 (Cal. App. 2013) (careful analysis of appearance bias; standards for disclosure)