If you have never sat through a civil case in a California courtroom, you might assume that once a lawsuit is filed, a judge is assigned and the case simply moves forward. In reality, both sides have a one-time right to remove a judge without giving a reason, and how that right gets used can quietly shape the speed, the pressure, and even the outcome of a personal injury case.
On May 28, 2026, the California Supreme Court issued a decision in J.O. v. Superior Court of San Joaquin County that changes the rules around that practice. Courts may now, in limited circumstances, look behind peremptory disqualification motions when those motions appear to be part of a coordinated effort by one side to remove the same judge from case after case. For injured Californians, this is a quiet but meaningful shift in how the litigation playing field is leveled.
Below, we break down what a section 170.6 challenge is, what the Court actually decided, and what it means if you find yourself across the table from a defense team that seems intent on shopping for a friendlier judge.
What a Section 170.6 Challenge Actually Is
California Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6 gives every party in a civil case a one-time right to disqualify the assigned judge without proving bias. The motion is called a peremptory challenge. A party simply files a sworn statement that the judge is “prejudiced” against them, and the case is reassigned. No hearing, no evidence, no judicial finding.
The original purpose was protective. If a litigant believed, in good faith, that a particular judge could not be fair, the party should not have to publicly accuse that judge of bias in order to get a new assignment. Section 170.6 created a quiet, no-fault exit.
For decades, California courts treated the statute as essentially unreviewable. Under the longstanding rule from Solberg v. Superior Court, trial judges were not permitted to dig into a party’s motives for filing a 170.6 motion, even if it looked like the same firm was filing the same challenges against the same judge over and over again.
That is what the Supreme Court has now changed.
What the Court Held in J.O. v. Superior Court
In J.O., the Court confronted a pattern that has frustrated trial judges for years. A group of attorneys appeared to be coordinating peremptory challenges against a particular judge, effectively removing that judge from an entire category of cases. The trial court wanted to look behind the filings. Solberg said it could not.
The Supreme Court did three important things in J.O.:
- It held that section 170.6 remains facially constitutional. The statute itself is not going anywhere.
- It made clear that an individual party’s good-faith peremptory challenge is still protected. A single, case-specific 170.6 motion does not invite scrutiny.
- It overruled Solberg to the extent that decision barred courts from considering as-applied challenges to bad-faith, coordinated “blanket” use of section 170.6. Trial courts now have a tool to scrutinize patterns that look like they are gaming the assignment process.
In other words, one motion in one case is still essentially unreviewable. But a pattern of motions, filed across many cases, that strips the same judge from an entire docket can now be examined and, if found to be in bad faith, rejected.
Why Judge Assignment Matters in a Personal Injury Case
It is easy to assume that a judge is a judge and that the law is the law. In practice, the judge assigned to your case influences a long list of things that can change what your case is worth and how long it takes to get there. That includes:
- How quickly motions are decided, including motions to compel discovery from a defendant who is dragging its feet.
- How willing the court is to set firm trial dates and hold parties to them.
- How summary judgment motions and motions in limine are handled.
- How the court approaches sanctions when one side abuses the discovery process.
- How realistic the court is about settlement value during mandatory settlement conferences.
When the same institutional defendants, large trucking companies, rideshare platforms, hospital systems, retail chains, appear in court over and over, their defense teams develop strong opinions about which judges they want, and which judges they do not. A coordinated effort to peremptorily remove a single judge from every case of a certain type can effectively rewrite who decides your motions, without anyone outside the courthouse noticing.
That is the practice J.O. now allows trial courts to examine.
What This Means for Injured Plaintiffs
For most clients, a section 170.6 challenge will never come up directly. You will not see the filing, and the reassignment may happen quietly in the first weeks of the case. But the indirect effects of J.O. matter, and they generally cut in favor of injured plaintiffs.
Less strategic delay. Each reassignment can reset the clock on case management, push out trial dates, and force the plaintiff to re-introduce the case to a new bench officer. When that pattern is being driven by coordinated defense strategy rather than genuine concerns about bias, J.O. now gives trial courts authority to call it out.
More predictable case management. Personal injury cases live and die on momentum. Medical providers want to know when they will be paid. Wage-loss calculations grow more complex the longer treatment continues. Defense delay is not neutral. It pressures injured people who are out of work and behind on bills to accept low offers. A court that can preserve continuity on the bench is a court that can keep a case moving.
A cleaner record for appeal. If a defense team’s blanket challenges are scrutinized and rejected on the record, that itself becomes part of the case file. Future motion practice can reference it. Patterns of bad-faith litigation conduct are easier to address when they have been formally identified by the court.
No loss of legitimate protection. Importantly, J.O. did not eliminate your own right, or your attorney’s right, to file a good-faith 170.6 motion if there is a real reason to do so. If a judge has a history that genuinely concerns the plaintiff’s side in a particular case, that protective tool is still available.
How We Watch for Coordinated Defense Tactics
In our cases, we pay attention to judge assignment from the day the complaint is filed. When we see a reassignment under section 170.6, the first question is whether the filing looks case-specific or whether it looks like part of a broader pattern. A few signs we look for:
- The same defense firm filing 170.6 motions against the same judge in unrelated cases.
- Reassignment happening immediately after a particular judge has issued an unfavorable ruling for that defendant or insurer in another matter.
- A pattern of challenges that appears tied to the type of defendant, for example, a particular insurer’s panel counsel uniformly removing one judge.
- Timing that suggests the challenge is being used to manufacture delay rather than to address any real concern about that judge.
After J.O., when those patterns appear, there is now a path to ask the court to take a closer look. That is a meaningful change.
This kind of analysis is part of why an experienced injury firm matters. The medicine in your case has to be documented correctly, and our founder John Reardon’s two decades as a chiropractor before becoming a lawyer gives us a real advantage in showing how soft-tissue and orthopedic injuries develop over time. But the procedural side, who is hearing your motions, how fast they are being decided, and whether the other side is gaming the system, is just as important to the final result.
What This Decision Does Not Change
A few things worth being clear about. J.O. does not:
- Eliminate section 170.6. The peremptory challenge remains a part of California civil practice.
- Allow trial courts to investigate every 170.6 motion. The Court was careful to protect good-faith, case-specific filings.
- Affect challenges for cause under section 170.1, which involve actual bias and follow a different procedure.
- Change the statute of limitations, comparative fault rules, or any of the substantive doctrines that decide what an injury case is worth.
What it does change is the leverage that a coordinated defense effort can quietly exert over which judge hears your case. For the first time in decades, California trial courts have express authority to look at the pattern, not just the paperwork.
If You Are Considering a Personal Injury Claim in California
Procedural decisions like J.O. rarely make the evening news, but they shape outcomes for injured people in real ways. The team representing you should understand not just the medicine behind your injuries and the statutes that govern your damages, but also the courthouse practices, the assignment systems, and the defense playbooks that decide how your case actually unfolds.
If you have been hurt in a crash, a fall, or any incident caused by someone else’s negligence in California, we are happy to talk through your situation, explain what to expect from the litigation process, and answer your questions about how cases like yours typically move through the courts. Consultations with our office are free, and you do not owe us anything unless we recover for you. Reach out to Reardon Injury Law when you are ready, and we will take it from there.