Judge: Upinder S. Kalra, Case: BC548794, Date: 2025-06-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC548794    Hearing Date: June 3, 2025    Dept: 51

Tentative Ruling

Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Department 51

HEARING DATE:   June 3, 2025                                       

CASE NAME:           Greenfield LLC v. Ayman A. Kandeel, Ph.D. et al.

CASE NO.:                BC548794

MOTION TO DISQUALIFY (CCP § 170.6) 

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Ayman Kandeel

RESPONDING PARTY(S): N/A

REQUESTED RELIEF:

1.      An order disqualifying Judge Upinder Kalra after appeal.

TENTATIVE RULING:

1.      Motion to Amend Judgment is DENIED

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

On April 24, 2024, the Court of Appeal issued a Remittitur with Directions.

On May 2, 2025, the court set a status conference for June 3, 2025 at 8: 30 a.m.

On May 5, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Motion to for Order of Entry of Seconded Amended Judgment.

On June 2, 2025, Defendant filed a Motion for a Peremptory Challenge against Judge Upinder Kalra under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6

LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to CCP § 170.6, subdivision (a)(2), “[a] motion under this paragraph may be made following reversal on appeal of a trial court's decision, or following reversal on appeal of a trial court's final judgment, if the trial judge in the prior proceeding is assigned to conduct a new trial on the matter. . . . The motion shall be made within 60 days after the party or the party's attorney has been notified of the assignment.”

“Section 170.6 applies only where the matter is to be retried, not where it is remanded with instructions that require the trial court to complete a judicial task not performed in the prior proceeding. In the context of this statute, a retrial is a ‘reexamination’ of a factual or legal issue that was in controversy in the prior proceeding. (Paterno v. Superior Court (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 548, 560, 20 Cal.Rptr.3d 282; Pfeiffer Venice Properties v. Superior Court (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 761, 767, 132 Cal.Rptr.2d 400; see Code. Civ. Proc. § 656 [‘A new trial is a re-examination of an issue of fact in the same court after a trial and decision by a jury, court or referee.’].)” (Geddes v. Superior Ct. (2005) 126 Cal. App. 4th 417, 423–24.)

“If the court's function is merely a ministerial act (such as the recalculation of interest), the 1985 amendment does not apply. If, however, the court must conduct an actual retrial, even if that trial involves only one issue, the court may be disqualified upon a timely affidavit filed pursuant to section 170.6. (Stegs Invs. v. Superior Ct. (1991)233 Cal. App. 3d 572, 576 (Stegs), emphasis added.)

ANALYSIS:

Here, the Directions of the Court of Appeal were straightforward: “The amended judgment is reversed and remanded. The trial court is directed to recalculate Greenfield’s prejudgment interest consistent with this opinion and enter a new judgment.”  It seems that the matter was not returned to this court to conduct a trial. Rather, it appears that this court has only been instructed to conduct a ministerial act—calculate interest. (See Stegs.) Any doubt is resolved by reviewing the Court of Appeal’s discussion on how this court strayed following the first Remittitur “—[A]ll that disposition required of the court on remand was a mechanical calculation of prejudgment interest from the date of loss to the date of the original judgment.”

Conclusion:

            For the foregoing reasons, the Court decides the pending motion as follows:

            Accordingly, the CCP § 170.6 peremptory challenge is DENIED.

Moving party is to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:             June 3, 2025                __________________________________                                                                                                                Upinder S. Kalra

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court