California Supreme Court Watch

#24-257 J.O. v. Superior Court, S287285.  (C102071; nonpublished order; San Joaquin County Superior Court; STKMHLPSC20160000110.)  Petition for review after the Court of Appeal denied a petition for writ of mandate in a conservatorship proceeding.  The court issued an order to show cause why the relief sought in the petition should not be granted.  This case presents the following issue:  Should this court’s decision in Solberg v. Superior Court (1977) 19 Cal.3d 182 be overruled or limited insofar as it allowed a public agency to bring “blanket challenges” against particular judges under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6?

Petition for review granted: 12/18/2024

Written return filed: 1/16/2025

Traverse filed: 1/29/2025

Supplemental briefing ordered: 9/24/2025

The parties are directed to serve and file supplemental briefs on the following question: Assuming arguendo that “blanket challenges” to a particular judge under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6 implicate separation of powers concerns, do those concerns apply to actions taken only by executive branch offices such as a county counsel or a district attorney’s office, or does the concern apply more broadly to non-executive branch entities such as a public defender’s office or a private law firm? (See, e.g., People v. Superior Court (Tejeda) (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 892, 896; id. at p. 912, fn. 2 (conc. opn. of Aronson, J.); id. at p. 930 (dis. opn. of Thompson, J.).)

J.O. Supplemental opening brief filed: 10/09/2025

San Joaquin County Public Conservator opening brief filed: 10/14/2025

J.O. Reply to supplemental brief filed: 10/20/2025

San Joaquin County Public Conservator Reply to supplemental brief filed: 10/29/2025

Cause argued and submitted: 3/04/2026

Opinion filed: 5/28/2026

Request for modification of opinion filed: 6/05/2026

See the Petition for Review.

See the Oral Argument.

See the California Supreme Court Opinion.  (J.O. v. Superior Court (2026) __ Cal.5th __.)

“[W]e hold that if a party timely objects to a section 170.6 motion and makes a prima facie showing that the motion’s proponent is lodging bad faith blanket challenges against a judge, a court may look beyond the section 170.6 affidavit or oral statement and inquire into the legitimacy of the party’s assertions of prejudice. Since the trial court here concluded that petitioner’s separation of powers objection to County Counsel’s alleged blanket challenges to Judge Guy Castillo was barred under Solberg, it had no occasion to consider the substance of his allegations; the Court of Appeal then summarily denied writ relief. Under these circumstances, we remand the cause to the Court of Appeal to consider whether any further proceedings are necessary in light of our opinion.”

Justice Groban authored the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Guerrero and Justices Corrigan, Liu, Kruger, Evans, and Brown* concurred.

In the news: Sawicki, Calif. Supreme Court OKs Challenges to Blanket Judge DQs, Law360 (May 29, 2026).