California 170.6 Motion
In Stegs Investments v. Superior Court (1991) 233 Cal. App. 3d 572, the appellate court partially reversed the original judgment.
The trial court denied the defendant's section 170.6 motion noting the matter was returned for further hearing on a single issue, and not for a new trial. (Stegs Investments, supra, 233 Cal. App. 3d at p. 575.)
The appellate court began its analysis by identifying the purpose of the 1985 amendment.
"The concern expressed by the proponents of the 1985 amendment was that a judge who had been reversed might prove to be biased against the party who successfully appealed the judge's erroneous ruling at the original trial. the amendment was 'intended to permit a party to challenge a judge who had been assigned to conduct the "new trial" of the case in which his or her decision was reversed on appeal. the term "new trial" is intended to cover situations where the case is to be re-tried and not merely remanded with instructions to perform some specific task (e.g., recalculate interest).' (Assem. Com. on Jud. Analysis of Assem. Bill No. 1213, as amended May 15, 1985.)" (233 Cal. App. 3d at pp. 575-576.)
The appellate court held the trial judge may be disqualified upon a timely affidavit being filed pursuant to section 170.6 if there is a trial of only a single issue. (Stegs Investments, supra, 233 Cal. App. 3d at p. 576.)