After all current Supreme Court justices recused themselves from ruling on a petition for review in a case regarding judicial pay, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye last week assigned six superior court justices to rule on the petition, and also on the case itself if review is granted. The court’s recusal order stipulated that the replacement judges would all need to have taken office after July 1, 2017. Of that group of judicial officers, the assignments were made alphabetically, which is the same system the Chief Justice uses to pick Court of Appeal justices to serve as pro tems.
The temporary justices are: from the Los Angeles court — Judges Brett Bianco, Bruce Brodie, and Steve Cochran; from the Orange County court — Judges Andre De La Cruz and Scott Cooper; and Judge Teresa Caffese from San Francisco. Governor Jerry Brown appointed all six at the same time, in November of last year. According to the Chief Justice’s assignment order, Bianco has served the longest — presumably he was sworn in before any of the others — and has thus been designated the Acting Chief Justice.
In other news related to the case, Mallano v. Chiang:
- Counsel for the plaintiff judges in the case, who want the petition for review denied, sent the court a letter last week stating that even judges appointed after the July 1, 2017, cutoff date have a financial interest in the matter. The letter also asked the Supreme Court to clarify that the superior court and Court of Appeal judges who have previously ruled on the case did not taint their rulings by having served as judges before the cutoff date.
- In Friday’s Daily Journal, Meghann Cuniff pointed out that the Supreme Court missed its deadline to rule on the petition. Under rule 8.512, the court had to rule by October 2, 60 days after the petition’s filing. The rule allows the court to extend its time by 30 days, but an extension must be ordered “[b]efore the 60-day period or any extension expires.” The court didn’t do that. Instead, on October 10 the court purported to extend to November 1 its time to rule and said the extension order was “entered nunc pro tunc as of September 25.” Rule 8.512 provides, “If the court does not rule on the petition within the [allowed] time . . ., the petition is deemed denied.” If the temporary justices grant review, it will be interesting to see if the plaintiffs challenge the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction to decide the case.