Swenson v. Superior Court
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
BOREN, J.
In this original proceeding, petitioners claim that the five-day extension of time provided by Code of Civil Procedure section 1013, subdivision (a), applies to notice by mail of a master calendar assignment of an all-purpose judge. Petitioners, the plaintiffs below in a case subject to the Los Angeles Superior Court’s Trial Court Delay Reduction Act rules, received such notice by mail and 12 days later asserted a peremptory challenge (Code Civ. Proc., § 170.6) to the assigned judge. The challenge was rejected as untimely, raising the issue before us in this proceeding:…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Augustyn v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
3Cited by7 opinions
- Citicorp North America, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1989
- International Union of Operating Engineers v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1989
- Beverly Union Co. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1988
- Autoland, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1988
- California Business Council v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1997
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.