Stegs Investments v. Superior Court, No. B051733

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals
Writing for the CourtASHBY; TURNER, P.J., and BOREN
Citation233 Cal.App.3d 572,284 Cal.Rptr. 495
PartiesSTEGS INVESTMENTS, et al., Petitioners, v. SUPERIOR COURT of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, Respondent. Renee SPRECHER, Real Party in Interest.
Docket NumberNo. B051733
Decision Date20 August 1991

Page 495

284 Cal.Rptr. 495
233 Cal.App.3d 572
STEGS INVESTMENTS, et al., Petitioners,
v.
SUPERIOR COURT of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, Respondent.
Renee SPRECHER, Real Party in Interest.
No. B051733.
Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 5, California.
Aug. 20, 1991.

[233 Cal.App.3d 573] Edward R. Brown, Encino, for petitioners.

No appearance for respondent.

Bergman & Wedner, Gregory M. Bergman and Kristi Sjoholm-Sierchio, Los Angeles, for real party in interest.

ASHBY, Associate Justice.

In this proceeding, we hold that petitioners, who obtained partial reversal on appeal of a superior court judgment, may disqualify the original trial judge from presiding over the partial retrial of the case.

233 Cal.App.3d 574

FACTS

This lawsuit involves the dissolution of Stegs Investments, a partnership consisting of petitioners Harley Stegman, Benjamin Stegman (now deceased) and Golda Stegman, and real party Renee Sprecher. Prior to trial, the parties stipulated that the partnership be dissolved; the only issue to be tried was whether there had been a breach of the partnership agreement. The respondent court found that petitioners had breached the agreement in a number of respects, and entered a judgment in favor of real party. Petitioners appealed, and Division Four of this court affirmed the judgment in part, and reversed in part due to erroneous evidentiary rulings by the respondent court. The matter was remanded "to afford defendants [petitioners] an opportunity to present evidence as to the circumstances under which the parties entered into the written partnership agreement." The remittitur issued on March 26, 1990.

On April 24, 1990, real party's counsel sent a letter to Judge Wisot's clerk requesting that the partial retrial of the case be heard by Judge Wisot. On April 27, 1990, petitioners' counsel wrote to Judge Wisot requesting that he consider disqualifying himself should the matter be reassigned to him. Judge Wisot did not reply to this letter, but real party's counsel responded a few days later with another letter to Judge Wisot, once again requesting that the remanded matters be heard by him.

As a precautionary measure, petitioners' counsel took steps to preserve petitioners' right to disqualify Judge Wisot. On April 30, 1990, counsel telephoned a clerk in the Master Calendar department to ascertain the court's policy in assigning remitted cases. Counsel was informed that "such cases would go back to the Master Calendar if not 'fast track' matters." Counsel confirmed this advice in writing in a follow-up letter to the master calendar court.

Petitioners also filed a motion to compel discovery and set the hearing on the motion in a law and discovery department of the superior court. Real party's counsel once against requested that the matter be heard by Judge Wisot. On June 29, 1990, petitioner's counsel called Department 31 (Judge Wisot's court) to find out if the July 2 discovery hearing had been transferred to that department. Counsel was advised by the clerk that there was no hearing on calendar for July 2. 1

At some time prior to June 27, 1990, the case was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
30 practice notes
  • Peracchi v. Superior Court, No. F038251.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • December 6, 2001
    ...sentencing guidelines, the task of resentencing petitioner is but a ministerial act. In Stegs Investments v. Superior Court (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 572, 284 Cal.Rptr. 495, the Second District Court of Appeal was confronted with the question of whether the above quoted language of section 170.......
  • State Farm v. Superior Court, No. B174063.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • August 9, 2004
    ...remanded with instructions to perform some specific task (e.g., recalculate interest).'" (Stegs Investments v. Superior Court (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 572, 575-576, 284 Cal.Rptr. 495 (Stegs), italics added, quoting Assem. Com. on Jud., Analysis of Assem. Bill No. 1213 (1985-1986 Reg. Sess.) as......
  • Davcon, Inc. v. Roberts & Morgan, No. E030006.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • July 30, 2003
    ...121, but does not approve or disapprove it. In that case, we followed the earlier case of Stegs Investments v. Superior Court (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 572, 284 Cal.Rptr. 495 and held that Stubblefield could file a peremptory challenge following reversal of a judgment, even though the judgment ......
  • Peracchi v. Superior Court, No. S103681.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • June 23, 2003
    ...action was reversed in part and remanded for readjudication on a contested issue of fact]; Stegs Investments v. Superior Court (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 572, 284 Cal.Rptr. 495 [same, in partnership dissolution action].) Employing the broad reading of the term "new trial" outlined by these decis......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
30 cases
  • Peracchi v. Superior Court, No. F038251.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • December 6, 2001
    ...sentencing guidelines, the task of resentencing petitioner is but a ministerial act. In Stegs Investments v. Superior Court (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 572, 284 Cal.Rptr. 495, the Second District Court of Appeal was confronted with the question of whether the above quoted language of section 170.......
  • State Farm v. Superior Court, No. B174063.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • August 9, 2004
    ...remanded with instructions to perform some specific task (e.g., recalculate interest).'" (Stegs Investments v. Superior Court (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 572, 575-576, 284 Cal.Rptr. 495 (Stegs), italics added, quoting Assem. Com. on Jud., Analysis of Assem. Bill No. 1213 (1985-1986 Reg. Sess.) as......
  • Davcon, Inc. v. Roberts & Morgan, No. E030006.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • July 30, 2003
    ...121, but does not approve or disapprove it. In that case, we followed the earlier case of Stegs Investments v. Superior Court (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 572, 284 Cal.Rptr. 495 and held that Stubblefield could file a peremptory challenge following reversal of a judgment, even though the judgment ......
  • Peracchi v. Superior Court, No. S103681.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • June 23, 2003
    ...action was reversed in part and remanded for readjudication on a contested issue of fact]; Stegs Investments v. Superior Court (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 572, 284 Cal.Rptr. 495 [same, in partnership dissolution action].) Employing the broad reading of the term "new trial" outlined by these decis......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT