J.O. v. Superior Court, 19 Cal. 5^th 753 (2026)

Pursuant Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 170.6, a party or attorney may disqualify a judge from a matter simply by signing an affidavit or orally stating under oath that the judge is “prejudiced” against a party, attorney, or their respective interests. If the motion is timely and properly presented, the disqualification is automatic and a new judge must be assigned without any judicial inquiry into the veracity of the affidavit or oral statement. Solberg v. Superior Court, 19 Cal. 3d 182 (1977). In this case, a particular judge from the San Joaquin County Superior Court had admonished an attorney from the Office of the County Counsel for actions that were improper; thereafter, County Counsel blanketly disqualified the judge in all conservatorship cases, filing an estimated 325 Section 170.6 disqualification motions against the judge in the span of less than four months. As a result of the blanket disqualification policy, the judge had to be reassigned to a different department. In this opinion, the Supreme Court overruled Solberg to the extent it permitted “blanket abuses” of Section 170.6 and, instead, adopted a more flexible shifting-burden test whereby a party may oppose such a motion by making a showing that the motion’s proponent is lodging “blanket challenges” against a judge