California has two different procedures, and they serve different purposes. Code of Civil Procedure section 170.1 identifies fact-based grounds for judicial disqualification, which are raised through section 170.3’s verified-statement process. Section 170.6 is a peremptory challenge based on a sworn statement that the party believes the assigned judge is prejudiced; it does not require proving a section 170.1 ground, but it has strict assignment-specific timing and limits. Neither is simply a way to undo an unfavorable ruling. (Code Civ. Proc. § 170.1; § 170.3; § 170.6)
If you have a specific disqualifying fact
Section 170.1 covers defined circumstances, including a judge’s financial interest, prior lawyer role in the matter, personal knowledge of disputed facts, or circumstances that could cause a reasonable person to doubt impartiality. If a judge does not recuse, section 170.3 allows a party to file a written verified statement describing the facts at the earliest practicable opportunity after learning of them. The required service and response procedures apply, and a contested challenge is decided by another judge—not by the challenged judge ruling on their own disqualification. (Code Civ. Proc. § 170.1; § 170.3)
An order deciding the challenge is not appealable. Section 170.3 allows a writ petition in the Court of Appeal, filed and served within 10 days after service of written notice of entry of the order; service by mail extends that period under the rule the statute cites. A disqualification ruling also does not automatically wipe out earlier rulings. The statute addresses earlier rulings and allows them to be set aside only on the terms it specifies, including good cause in the circumstances it describes. (Code Civ. Proc. § 170.3)
If you are considering a section 170.6 challenge
Section 170.6 does not ask the party to prove an objective disqualification fact. It requires an oral or written motion supported by a sworn declaration or an oral statement under oath that the party believes the judge is prejudiced and cannot provide a fair, impartial hearing. The statute generally limits a side to one such challenge in an action and directs reassignment rather than allowing a party to select a preferred judge. (Code Civ. Proc. § 170.6)
Timing depends on the assignment and proceeding. For example, a criminal case assigned to one judge for all purposes generally requires the motion within 10 days after notice of the assignment, or within 10 days after the party first appears if the party has not yet appeared. In a master-calendar trial, the challenge is due no later than assignment for trial. Other assignments and hearings have different cutoffs, including limits once trial or the hearing begins. A past nonmerits proceeding does not necessarily foreclose a later motion, but the assignment history and what the judge already decided can matter. Get counsel to check the exact assignment notice, first appearance, upcoming hearing, prior rulings, and date the disqualification facts became known before choosing a route.
Preserve the assignment notice, calendar, relevant orders, and concrete facts supporting a challenge. Do not characterize a judge as biased solely because the judge ruled against you; a challenge must fit the correct procedure and timing. The Law Offices of David S. Chesley represents people facing California criminal charges. Call (800) 755-5174 to discuss the judge assignment and available procedure.