European Beverage, Inc. v. Superior Court
Citation | 43 Cal.App.4th 1211,51 Cal.Rptr.2d 147 |
Decision Date | 25 March 1996 |
Docket Number | No. B098022,B098022 |
Court | California Court of Appeals |
Parties | , 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2048, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 3433 EUROPEAN BEVERAGE, INC., et al., Petitioners, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of Los Angeles County, Respondent; Sam MEARA, Real Party in Interest. |
De Witt W. Clinton, County Counsel, Frederick R. Bennett, Assistant County Counsel, for Respondent.
Jay S. Bloom, Long Beach, for Real Party in Interest.
In this case we hold that, in a court trial, absent a waiver or a stipulation to the contrary, a party is entitled to have the same judge try all portions of a bifurcated trial that depend on weighing evidence and issues of credibility, and that if that judge is unavailable to do so, a mistrial must be declared.
Sam Meara (real party in interest) brought this action claiming he owned a one-half interest in European Beverage, Inc., and that various defendants (petitioners) committed intentional torts by diluting his interest in European Beverage and diluting its assets. The matter proceeded to trial on June 27, 1994 before Judge Thomas Schneider. The court bifurcated the issues, ordering that the equitable issues of accounting and constructive trust be tried first in a court trial. At the conclusion of this first phase of trial, Judge Schneider determined that real party is the owner of 50 percent of the shares of the corporation, and directed a special master to conduct an accounting of the net worth of the corporation and inquire into any diversion of assets to petitioners.
The special master issued his report in November 1994. The second phase of the trial was set to begin on December 12, 1995 before Judge Schneider. Before that date, Judge Schneider became the assistant supervising judge of the Northwest District, assigned to the master calendar department. On December 12, the matter was ordered trailed to allow petitioners' counsel to conclude a trial in which he was engaged. Judge Schneider informed the parties that he was no longer available to try the case, and that the remaining issues would be transferred to another judge. On December 14, petitioners filed an ex parte application for an order to prevent transfer of the case to a new trial judge, or alternatively, for a mistrial. The trial court denied the application and ordered the case removed from the trailing calendar and transferred "forthwith" to another judge for trial.
Petitioners then filed a petition for writ of mandate in this court, seeking an order directing the trial court either to quash the transfer or declare a mistrial. They argue that absent a waiver, the parties are entitled to have the judge who enters judgment in a court trial hear all the evidence and determine all the issues. We issued a temporary stay and an alternative writ. We now grant the requested relief.
The law has long been settled that in a civil action (Guardianship of Sullivan (1904) 143 Cal. 462, 467, 77 P. 153; Bodine v. Superior Court (1962) 209 Cal.App.2d 354, 364-365, 26 Cal.Rptr. 260.) Where there has been an interlocutory judgment rendered by one judge, and that judge then becomes unavailable to decide the remainder of the case, a successor judge is obliged to hear the evidence and make his or her own decision on all issues, including those that had been tried before the first judge, unless the parties stipulate otherwise. (Rose v. Boydston (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 92, 97, 175 Cal.Rptr. 836.) This is because an interlocutory judgment is subject to modification at any time prior to entry of a final judgment. (Ibid.) It is considered a denial of due process for a new judge to render a final judgment without having heard all of Real party and respondent rely upon California Rules of Court, rule 232.5 as authority for having different judges hear different phases of a bifurcated trial. That rule provides in part: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Marriage of Seyler, In re
...due process entitles a litigant to a decision on the facts by a judge who has heard the evidence. European Beverage, Inc. v. Superior Ct., 43 Cal.App.4th 1211, 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 147, 148 (1996); Stevens v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 29 Conn.App. 378, 615 A.2d 507, 511 (1992); Anderson v. ......
-
Valentine v. Baxter Healthcare Corp.
...decision upon the facts from the jury that hears the evidence. Appellant refers us to the case of European Beverage, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1211, 1214, 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 147. After conclusion of the first phase of a bifurcated court trial, the trial judge who determined p......
-
James G. v. Superior Court
...(1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 1251, 57 Cal.Rptr.2d 249 [legality of flat fee for court-appointed counsel]; European Beverage, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1211, 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 147 [whether same judge should preside over all portions of a bifurcated trial]; Shipp v. Superior Court (1......
-
Pauma Band of LuiseÑo Mission Indians v. Harrah's Operating Company, Inc., D050667 (Cal. App. 9/28/2009)
...An "interlocutory judgment is subject to modification at any time prior to the entry of a final judgment." (European Beverage, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1211, 1214.) The parties have properly appealed the February 20, 2007 final judgment and postjudgment Harrah's Appeal/I......
-
Table of cases
...848, §19:140 Eubanks, People v. (2011) 53 Cal. 4th 110, 134 Cal. Rptr. 3d 795, §17:140 European Beverage v. Superior Court (1996) 43 Cal. App. 4th 1211, 51 Cal. Rptr. 2d 147, §§1:380, 4:50 Evans v. Hood Corp. (2016) 5 Cal. App. 5th 1022, 211 Cal. Rptr. 3d 261, §7:80 Evans v. Ohanesian (1974......
-
Objections, motions and related procedures
...see Chs. 3, 22. • The judge in a bench trial is unable to complete the trial. European Beverage, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 43 Cal. App. 4th 1211, 1214-1216, 51 Cal. Rptr. 2d 147. • The court finds that a law enforcement officer or expert witness exhibited bias or animus toward the defen......
-
Order of proceedings
...entire case, in the absence of a stipulation or waiver a mistrial must be declared. European Beverage, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 43 Cal. App. 4th 1211, 1213, 51 Cal. Rptr. 2d 147; for mistrials generally, see Ch. 1. §4:60 Legal and Equitable Issues A party has the right to a jury trial ......
-
Cheers! European Beverage and One-judge Rules
...He also owns and operates a rare, vintage, and antiquarian bookstore called Owl Creek Books.1. European Beverage v. Super. Ct., 43 Cal. App. 4th 1211, 1214 (1996).2. Id. at 1214-1215.3. Id.4. Reimer v. Firpo, 94 Cal. App. 2d 798, 801 (1949).5. BENDER, 3 CAL. FAMILY LAW PRAC. & PROC. §111.03......