Hartford Cas.Ins. Co. v. Super. Ct. 12/22/04 CA2/5

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » California » Court of Appeal » 2005 » Hartford Cas.Ins. Co. v. Super. Ct. 12/22/04 CA2/5

State: California

Court: 1st District Court of Appeal 1st District Court of Appeal

Docket No: B176439

Case Date: 03/24/2005

Preview:Filed 12/22/04

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, (Aurelio N. Munoz, Judge) v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; C3 ENTERTAINMENT, INC. et al., Real Parties in Interest. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING; application for writ of mandate. Writ granted. Michelman & Robinson, Dean B. Herman, Catherine Rivard, and Katherine Tatikian for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Robert N. Benjamin; Roxborough, Pomerance & Nye and Drew E. Pomerance for Real Parties in Interest. _____________________________ No. B176439 (Super. Ct. No. BC288501)

The judge presiding over this matter denied Hartford Casualty Insurance Company's (Hartford) motion for summary adjudication. The judge later realized he was disqualified because an alternative dispute provider had contacted him concerning possible employment upon his retirement from the bench. He then proceeded to recuse himself from the matter. However, when Hartford moved that the new judge assigned to the case vacate the prior judge's order, the new judge refused on the ground that Hartford had not shown good cause. That refusal was an error. Accordingly, we will grant Hartford's petition for a writ of mandate directing the respondent court to vacate its order denying Hartford's motion and enter a new and different order granting that motion. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Hartford refused to defend a lawsuit filed against its insureds, real parties C3 Entertainment, Inc., Knuckleheads, Inc. and Earl M. Benjamin (collectively referred to as C3 Entertainment). C3 Entertainment then sued Hartford for breach of contract and bad faith insurance practices, and included a claim for punitive damages. Hartford crosscomplained for declaratory relief, seeking a determination that it did not breach any of its duties to C3 Entertainment. On October 16, 2003, the trial court granted C3 Entertainment's motion seeking a summary adjudication that Hartford owed it a duty to defend the underlying lawsuit. An order summarily adjudicating the issue in C3 Entertainment's favor was entered on November 13, 2003. On November 21, 2003, Hartford filed its own motion for summary adjudication of C3 Entertainment's cause of action for bad faith insurance practices and its punitive damages claim, or for adjudication of Hartford's various claims for declaratory relief. On January 8, 2004, at a hearing on a different matter, the then-presiding trial judge agreed to refer the case to mediation as suggested orally by Hartford's co-defendant, and supported by Hartford, in order to attempt a speedy resolution of the action in light of C3

2

Entertainment's request to continue trial.1 The court left it up to the parties to determine how to mediate the case. On February 5, 2004, Hartford filed a motion to appoint a referee to determine the amount of attorney-fee damages that were at issue in the case. On the same day, the then-presiding trial judge heard argument on Hartford's motion for summary adjudication and issued an order denying the motion. However, on March 15, 2004, when the motion to appoint a referee came on for hearing, the judge revealed that he would be disqualified from presiding on the matter further pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 170.1, subdivision (a)(8)(B), unless the parties waived the issue. The judge revealed that within the last two years he had had discussions with multiple alternative dispute resolution providers regarding prospective employment.2 When Hartford refused to waive the issue, the judge recused himself. No party filed a petition for writ of mandate to challenge the judge's action. (Code Civ. Proc.,3

Download Hartford Cas.Ins. Co. v. Super. Ct. 12/22/04 CA2/5.pdf