AB 2125: Judicial officers: disqualification.

Session Year: 2023-2024
House: Assembly
Latest Version Date: 2024-05-16

Current Status:

Failed

(2024-08-15: In committee: Held under submission.)

Introduced

In Committee

First Chamber

In Committee

Second Chamber

Enacted

Version:

Existing law authorizes a party or attorney in an action or proceeding to move to disqualify a judge, court commissioner, or referee for prejudice against a party or attorney or the interest of a party or attorney, as specified. Prejudice may be established by an oral or written motion without notice supported by affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury, or an oral statement under oath, that the judge, court commissioner, or referee is prejudiced against a party or attorney, or the interest of the party or attorney, so that the party or attorney cannot, or believes that they cannot, have a fair and impartial trial or hearing. Existing law requires, in specified circumstances, the Chair of the Judicial Council to assign some other judge, court commissioner, or referee to try the cause or hear the matter as promptly as possible. Existing law specifies that these provisions do not apply to a judge designated or assigned to serve on the appellate division of a superior court in the judges capacity as a judge in that division.

This bill, from January 1, 2025, to January 1, 2031, would repeal that exclusion and would extend these provisions to authorize a party or attorney to disqualify a justice or justices of an appellate court for prejudice against a party or attorney, or the interest of a party or attorney, as specified. The bill would authorize the motion directed to one or more justices of a court of appeal to only be made following reversal by the California Supreme Court of a court of appeals decision, and may only be directed to the justice or justices who authored or concurred in the prior decision and who is or are assigned to further consider the matter. The bill would authorize the party who obtained the reversal of a decision of a court of appeal to make that motion regardless of whether that party or side has previously done so. The bill would require, for cases reversed on or after January 1, 2025, the motion to be made within 30 days after the party or the partys attorney has been notified of the assignment. The bill would require, for cases reversed before January 1, 2025, and remaining pending as of the effective date of this act, the motion to be made on or before January 31, 2025. The bill would require, if the motion is duly presented and the affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury is duly filed or an oral statement under oath is duly made, that the presiding justice assign other justice or justices or transfer the case to another panel of justices. The bill would also require, in specified circumstances, the Chair of the Judicial Council to assign some other justice or justices to hear the matter as promptly as possible.

The bill would require the California Law Revision Commission to deliver, on or before September 30, 2027, a study regarding the recusal of judicial officers for prejudice and conflict of interest, as specified. The bill would require the California Law Revision Commission to consult with the Commission on Judicial Performance in developing the study. This bill would make these provisions inoperative on September 30, 2031, and would repeal it as of January 1, 2032.

Discussed in Hearing