Profile

Hon. Patricia Benke is a distinguished legal professional with over 40 years of service in the judiciary and legal field. She brings unparalleled expertise and a deep commitment to justice to her new role as a neutral with ADR Services, Inc. Her career reflects an unwavering dedication to fostering fair and equitable resolutions across a wide array of legal disciplines.

For 35 years, Justice Benke served as an Associate Justice of the Fourth District, Division One, California Court of Appeal, where she authored numerous opinions on complex legal issues. Her thoughtful and comprehensive legal analysis earned her a reputation for excellence in decision-making and a profound impact on California jurisprudence. Prior to her appellate court service, she spent four years as a Superior Court Judge, presiding over the Law and Motion Department and the Family Law Department. During this time, she handled civil trials involving government agencies, personal injury, and family law, demonstrating an exceptional ability to address intricate legal challenges with fairness and empathy.

Justice Benke began her career as a Deputy Attorney General, representing the state in various legal proceedings. This foundational experience solidified her expertise in litigation and prepared her for her extensive judicial career. Beyond her courtroom accomplishments, she has shared her knowledge and passion for the law as a professor at National University, designing and teaching courses in Alternative Dispute Resolution. Her dedication to advancing innovative approaches to conflict resolution is evident in her work and teaching.

Throughout her career, Justice Benke has received numerous accolades, including the inaugural Napoleon Jones Award for Judicial Excellence from the Earl B. Gilliam Bar Association. She is particularly proud of her work in cases that bridged deep divides, such as the Soledad Mountain Cross case, which achieved reconciliation between religious and atheistic perspectives. Equally notable is her ability to guide individuals through personal transformations, as evidenced by a family law case where her intervention helped a father regain custody of his child through a renewed sense of responsibility and commitment.

Justice Benke’s mediation philosophy centers on understanding and empathy. She believes that alternative dispute resolution should complement the judicial system by providing creative and effective avenues for resolving conflicts. In mediation, she focuses on facilitating agreements that enhance the parties’ quality of life, while in arbitration, she ensures rigorous adherence to legal principles to deliver clear and well-reasoned decisions. Her approach to pre-mediation preparation is thorough and client-focused, involving detailed case analysis and personalized discussions with parties to identify key obstacles and explore resolution options. Post-mediation, she remains available to support parties and ensure satisfaction with the process.

In her role as a neutral, Justice Benke draws on her extensive legal background and her personal commitment to helping individuals and organizations resolve disputes in a fair and efficient manner. Her patient demeanor, exceptional listening skills, and strategic thinking make her an invaluable asset to litigants. She is particularly motivated by the opportunity to make justice more accessible and equitable for all, fostering a legal system that is responsive to diverse populations and mindful of the human aspects of conflict resolution.

Justice Benke’s remarkable career, combined with her unwavering dedication to resolving conflicts and promoting equitable access to justice, underscores her commitment to fostering understanding and resolution in all her endeavors. Her personal values align seamlessly with her professional mission, ensuring that all parties she works with feel heard, respected, and empowered to reach fair and meaningful resolutions.

AREAS OF EXPERTISE

  • Government and Administrative Law
  • Homeowners’ Association Disputes
  • Wildfire Litigation and Settlement
  • Energy and Utilities
  • Environmental and Toxic Torts
  • Personal Injury
  • Health and Medical Disputes
  • Consumer Cases and Class Actions
  • Product Liability
  • Wills and Trusts
  • Appellate and Trial
  • Special Master Appointments
  • Mock Trials
  • Evidence References

EDUCATION

  • University of San Diego School of Law (J.D., May 1974)
    Managing Editor, San Diego Law Review
  • San Diego State University (B.A., June 1971)
    Major: Political Science, Minor: Telecommunications
    Graduated with Highest Honors
  • Pasadena City College (A.A., May 1969)
    Administrative Honors and Distinctions in Political Science

JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE

  • Associate Justice, Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division One (1987 – 2021)
    Authored over 400 published appellate decisions
    First woman and youngest appointee (37 years old) to Division One
    Presiding Justice Pro Tem, California Supreme Court (2010)
  • Judge, San Diego Superior Court (1985 – 1987)
    Civil Law and Motion Department (1986-1987)
    Domestic Law and Motion Department (1985-1986)
  • Judge, San Diego Municipal Court (1983-1985)

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

Deputy Attorney General, California (1974-1983)

  • State President, Association of California Deputies Attorney General (1978)
  • Attorney General’s Representative, Task Force on Probation and Parole (1977)

HONORS

  • Named a “Legend of the Bar” by San Diego County Bar Association (2018)
  • Judicial Master, San Diego Appellate Inn of Court
  • Napoleon A. Jones Award for Judicial Excellence (2011)
  • Distinguished Alumni Award, University of San Diego School of Law (2007)
  • Profiled in San Diego Magazine as one of “88 People to Watch in 1988”
  • Honorary Doctorate, University of California, San Diego (1990)

PUBLICATIONS

  • Recent Article: Los Angeles Daily Journal (August 29, 2024) – “Reflections on Oral Argument from an Appellate Justice Turned Practitioner”

Representative Cases

Arbitration

  • Two doctors formed a practice engaged in medicine and particularly radiology. Over the years the partnership expanded to include four doctors. Later, one of the partners broke his neck in a skiing accident, which left him unable to fully use his right hand. Given this disability, the doctor chose not to perform invasive radiological procedures such as angiography. The remaining partners declared that as a result of his disability, he was a "dissolving partner" within the meaning of the partnership agreement. Thereafter, the partners were unable to agree upon a valuation of his partnership interest and filed a demand for arbitration of the valuation issue. The arbitrator awarded the doctor a total of $450,000. Appellant sought to avoid confirmation of the arbitration award by challenging the legality of the underlying contract, claiming it contained statutorily prohibited non-compete provisions.
  • Dispute involving a construction defect claim and the enforceability of arbitration agreements. Developer sought to compel arbitration under a home warranty agreement, while the homeowners argued the agreement was unconscionable and unenforceable. The warranty company argued for its right to a stay under Code of Civil Procedure during the pendency of the arbitration ordered by a federal district court on a related case.
  • Case involving defendant's delay in asserting the right to arbitration, which led to the plaintiff expending substantial time and money conducting class discovery, much or all of which "would be rendered useless" if the matter proceeded to arbitration given a class action waiver in the arbitration agreement.
  • Plaintiff appealed a judgment confirming an arbitration award. The award was made by an arbitration panel at the conclusion of an arbitration proceeding between partners in a general partnership. The award appointed one of the Panel members as receiver to oversee the dissolution of the partnership and the sale of the partnership property. Plaintiff contends: (1) the award should be vacated because the Panel exceeded its powers by failing to apply California law to the dispute; and (2) the award should be corrected to require that the receiver be sworn and bonded as mandated by Code of Civil Procedure section 567.

Class Actions

  • Plaintiffs brought a class action on behalf of residents who live in 18 mobile home parks. Plaintiffs alleged they were subjected to uniform unconscionable lease agreements and leasing practices by defendants. Plaintiffs' operative complaint alleged among other causes of action (1) unfair business practices; (2) breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment; (3) breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing; and (4) fraud and deceit. On appeal, plaintiffs contended that the trial court prematurely dismissed their class allegations because their operative complaint adequately pleaded a community of interest with typical class representatives and predominately common questions of law and fact; and that in so doing, the court improperly assessed its action.

Consumer and Product Liability, Personal Injury

  • Significant consumer case regarding whether a major online retailer could be held strictly liable for a defective laptop battery that exploded and caused severe burns to the buyer. The court focused on the retailer’s interaction with the consumer from a defective product sold on its website by a third-party seller. Issues of whether the retailer was liable due to it being placed between the seller and the buyer in the chain of distribution of the product at issue.
  • A jury found the manufacturer of a watercraft one-third liable for an accident where two watercraft passengers were not wearing wetsuit bottoms or other protective clothing. There was a question of whether the manufacturer’s warning to wear protective clothing was inadequate, thus making the watercraft subject to conclusion it was defective in design.
  • Case regarding the circumstances under which those who undertake to provide manufacturers of medical products with human toxicology research and fail to exercise reasonable care in performing that undertaking may face potential tort liability pursuant to the "negligent undertaking" theory articulated in Restatement Second of Torts section 324A (section 324A).
  • Plaintiff had collected a number of rare and valuable pieces of furniture and personal belongings. Because of the large quantity of her personal belongings, she decided to rent storage space at a facility operated by defendant. She fell behind in rent and the storage facility placed an auction notice in the local newspaper. A couple came to the storage facility and the woman falsely claimed to be Plaintiff. The impostor tendered payment of the outstanding rent then due and without asking the woman to produce any identification, the employees removed the company's lock from Plaintiff's unit. The impostor and her companion then loaded Plaintiff's belongings into a U-Haul truck and left the scene. Plaintiff later tendered a cashier's check for the outstanding rent, and the facility notified her that someone had already paid and taken her belongings. Plaintiff sued the facility for emotional distress due to the loss of her belongings which held significant sentimental value.
  • Case of first impression regarding whether the sale of a manufacturer’s milk in California, which met federal standards, violated the regulation of milk sale under California standards, which were more stringent.
  • Real party in interest was severely injured when she attempted to climb over the coupling device of two trolleys operated by petitioners. She sued the trolley operator, alleging she had been negligent in failing to activate a buzzer and public announcement warning of the impending departure of her trolley. In a deposition, the operator disclosed she was being treated for anxiety by a psychiatrist, that she was taking three prescription medications, and that she had informed her supervisors about her treatment and medication. In response to the information obtained at deposition, the injured party served the company a request to produce the operator's personnel file and noticed depositions of two Trolley employees with knowledge of the contents of the file. Document subpoenas were also served on the operator's pharmacy, her health maintenance organization, the workers' compensation carrier and lawyers who had participated in her prior workers' compensation claims. The operator claimed that disclosure of her records was prevented by patient privilege under Evidence Code section 1024.

view all

Employment

  • Case wherein the defendant company sought to require the plaintiff to arbitrate whether he was an employee or an independent contractor before proceeding with a representative PAGA claim, based on the parties' arbitration agreement.
  • Under a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between plaintiff police officers' association and defendant city, each year police officers are permitted to sell back up to 40 hours of unused vacation time. In buying back vacation hours from police officers, the city pays officers only their base hourly pay. The city did not add to the vacation pay any incentive or differential pay to which officers might otherwise be entitled at the time of the buyback. The association objected to this practice and filed a grievance under terms of the MOU.
  • Plaintiff stayed at a hotel in San Diego operated by defendant and ordered room service from a room service menu, which stated that a service charge and applicable state tax will be added. When the meal arrived, in addition to the service charge and room delivery charge, the bill included a blank line for a tip or gratuity. Plaintiff alleged that the hotel's room service billing practice is deceptive because guests are not advised the service charge is in fact a gratuity paid to the server. Plaintiff also contends the service charge is unfair because it compels guests to pay a gratuity which should be entirely voluntary. Thus, the hotel's room service practices violate the unfair competition law (UCL), Business and Professions Code section 17200, as well as the more specific advertising provisions of section 17500. Finally, Plaintiff alleged that because other hotel patrons were subjected to the same practice, her claims would support class treatment under Code of Civil Procedure section 382 and Civil Code section 1781, subdivision (a).
  • Case which addressed the issue of whether a hospital's medical staff could independently sue the hospital and whether a medical staff person, as an unincorporated association, has legal standing to bring a lawsuit against the hospital to enforce its rights under the medical staff bylaws.
  • Decedent was hit head-on in a collision when a driver involved in a police chase crossed double-yellow lines and swerved into oncoming traffic. Decedent’s family claimed that the police used excessive force during the chase and were liable for the ensuing accident. Defendant police department claimed they were immune to liability pursuant to Vehicle Code section 17004.7, and that it had a training policy and procedure in place in regards to vehicle pursuits. At issue was whether electronic acknowledgement of receipt of the policy was insufficient to satisfy the requirement that officers certify they “received, read, and understand the policy.”
  • Service technicians sued their employer for various Labor Code violations based on the misclassification of the technicians as independent contractors instead of employees.

view all

Family Law

  • Mother was arrested at the international border for smuggling a large amount of marijuana from Mexico into the United States. Fifteen-month-old Minor was in Mother’s car at the time of her arrest. Minor was removed from her parent’s custody with the aim of eventual parental reunification. At Minor's jurisdiction and disposition hearing, the court stated it retained jurisdiction of the case pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (Fam. Code, § 3400 et seq.) because the family courts in Tijuana and Ensenada, Mexico, had declined to exercise jurisdiction over Minor. Minor was eventually placed with Mother in Mexico and reports showed that the child was doing well. Father claimed that conditions still existed that justified the initial assumption of jurisdiction.

Government & Municipal Law, Wildfire Litigation, Administrative Law

  • Wildfire Case involving destruction of over 195,000 acres. There was challenge to the California Public Utilities Commission decision denying a major utility provider’s application to include $379 million in settlement payments stemming from litigation involving a wildfire caused by its facilities. The utility argued the Commission’s decision should be annulled because it interpreted Public Utilities Code section 451 in a manner that unconstitutionally conflicted with the strict liability the utility faced in wildfire litigation as a result of plaintiff’s inverse condemnation claims. The utility also urged the decision should be annulled because insufficient evidence supported its determination that the utility was an imprudent manager, and its conduct caused the wildfire. Review denied by the California Supreme Court and certiori was denied by the United States Supreme Court.
  • The regional water board issued a cleanup and abatement order to a utility provider in connection with a power plant’s operations that discharged waste into the bay. The utility provider contested its designation as a “person” under Water Code section 13304(a).
  • The appellate decision overturned the environmental impact report (EIR) for the regional transportation plan. The court’s majority faulted the EIR for failing to assess the plan's consistency with the 2050 greenhouse gas emissions reduction goal contained in an executive order issued by the California Governor in 2005. The majority decision was reversed by the California Supreme Court.
  • Case involving the Coastal Act and whether destruction of an environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA) is permitted simply because the destruction is mitigated off-site.
  • A private veteran’s group constructed and maintained a large Latin cross on city parkland. City Proposition A donated the site to the Department of the Interior. There was a challenge to the donation as a violation of constitutional rights. This is a case involving questions of municipal law and constitutional law.
  • Action for refund of county property taxes. Case of first impression involving Inverse condemnation action against irrigation district and water district alleging the districts caused a taking of property damage caused by rising level of the Salton Sea.
  • Case involved multiple initiatives, one proposed by a city council regulating the rate of growth, and another initiative which also took steps to regulate growth. There was alleged conflicting language. The measure receiving the highest number of votes must prevail.
  • A security guard for a shopping center prevented plaintiff from distributing religious tracts in the shopping center parking lot. Plaintiff filed a complaint against the management company which is responsible for operation of the shopping center and the security company which employed the guard. Among other relief, Plaintiff sought a preliminary injunction permitting him to distribute his tracts in the parking lot. In opposing his application for an injunction, the shopping center argued litter and traffic problems justified its prohibition on leafletting in the center's parking lot.
  • In addition to opposing Savage's request for injunctive relief, the management company brought a demurrer to the complaint on the grounds Savage had no right to engage in other than political petitioning anywhere at the shopping center. The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend and entered an order dismissing the complaint.
    Prohibition against placing leaflets on cars in a parking lot to avoid littering and traffic problems.
  • A group of regularly credentialed teachers unsuccessfully applied for teaching jobs in a number of school districts. In place of the regularly credentialed teachers, the districts hired individuals who had received emergency credentials from the Commission on Teacher Credentialing. By way of a petition for a writ of mandate, the regularly credentialed teachers challenged the Commission's issuance of the emergency credentials and the districts' decision to employ teachers who received the emergency credentials. T
  • A 5-year-old girl and her 7-year-old sister were crossing the street so that they could get ice cream from an ice-cream truck. After the 5-year-old bought her ice cream, she started running back across the street and was hit by a van. The driver claimed that the ice cream truck obstructed her view so she did not see the child. The child’s leg was crushed and jaw broken, resulting in leg amputation. Issues regarding governmental liability and whether the City could have reduced the risk of injury to plaintiff by altering the physical characteristics of city-owned street.
  • Plaintiff was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol, failed a breath test, and was given notice that her privilege to drive could be suspended for four months effective forty-five days after her arrest. The People charged Snow with driving under the influence of alcohol and with a blood-alcohol level of .08 percent or more. A jury was unable to reach a verdict, and the court dismissed the charges. Plaintiff then filed a petition for writ of mandate to order the DMV to delete from its files reference to her excessive blood alcohol and suspension of her driver's license. Plaintiff argued dismissal of the criminal charges was tantamount to an acquittal and the trial court erred in denying her petition.
  • Eminent domain proceeding involving whether the defendant landowner properly disclosed the valuation evidence he offered at trial. Plaintiff and appellant acquired 4.2 acres of land owned by defendants. Prior to trial, Defendant disclosed the identity of and valuation opinion of an appraiser. However, shortly before trial, Defendant discovered flaws in his appraiser's opinion. The case was eventually was transferred to a different department for trial. Upon transfer to the new trial department, Defendant filed a trial brief which stated that he planned to call one of the co-owners of the property to testify as to the value of the property. Over Plaintiff’s objection, the trial court permitted the co-owner to testify. Defendant offered no other valuation evidence. The co-owner’s testimony was in sharp contrast to Plaintiff’s appraiser who set the value of the property much lower. Plaintiff moved for a new trial on the grounds the court erred in permitting the co-owner to testify as to his opinion of the value of the property.
  • This case involved a dispute between adjoining property owners over trees at or near their common border. Plaintiffs and appellants sued their neighbors alleging they wrongfully maintained, planted and/or installed numerous trees, shrubs and/or similar plants near the common property line at such a height and density so as to be annoying and damaging. Plaintiffs alleged a cause of action for private nuisance based on California's "spite fence" statute, Civil Code section 841.4, and based on ordinary nuisance principles, sections 3479 and 3481, and sought injunctive and declaratory relief in their second and third causes of action, respectively.
  • Plaintiff owned a commercial property and pays wastewater service fees to District. Plaintiffs' operative complaint asserted claims on behalf of themselves and all other District customers who paid a wastewater service fee. The complaint alleged causes of action against District for declaratory relief and for "refund [of] unlawful sewer service charges." Plaintiffs sought a declaration that District's method of determining the costs of sewer service based on each parcel's assigned EDU violated the "proportionally" provision of subdivision (b)(3) of section 6. Plaintiffs also sought a refund from District of alleged overcharges for wastewater service fees paid by its customers. At issue was whether property owners have an obligation to exhaust administrative remedies before seeking judicial relief where they were not protesting fee increases.

view all

Homeowners’ Association

  • Appellant built an apartment complex and later sold it to the Developers, which converted the complex to condominiums. The HOA later filed suit against the Developers claiming construction defects. The suit was settled and the HOA dismissed its lawsuit without prejudice to the Developers' right to sue the HOA directors and officers for equitable indemnity. In turn, the Developers agreed to restrict their indemnity claim to the insurance limits of the directors' E&O policy. The Developers then filed cross-complaints against various entities, including members and former members of the HOA's board of directors, seeking indemnification and declaratory relief. The Developers claimed the board had negligently managed the complex and had contributed to the damages suffered by the HOA. At issue was whether the developers could seek equitable indemnification from individual members of a homeowners’ association board.
  • Homeowners’ association circulated a document extending the effective date of the CC&Rs, which extension was recorded. The extension also set forth changes to the CC&Rs. A second homeowners’ association was then formed. It filed the action that challenged the validity of the extension. At issue was whether homeowners who assented to the extension in writing had the power to unilaterally revoke their consent.
  • Cross-complainant and respondent was the developer of a large tract of condominium duplexes. It was sued by the HOA representing homeowners who purchased individual units in the development. The HOA claimed the units suffered from a number of defects, including in particular, defective stucco on the exterior of the units. The HOA did not sue any subcontractors. Developer filed cross-complaints for contractual and equitable indemnity against 28 subcontractors.

Insurance

  • Landmark case regarding whether coverage was excluded for entity which conveyed the property after insurance policies were issued and after construction was completed, and insurance industry’s own interpretation that the broad form endorsement contained in the policies prevented application of the work performed exclusion and similar industry interpretations of the products exclusion prevented its application as a matter of law.
  • A third-grade teacher sexually abused one of his pupils. In an underlying proceeding, a $350,000 judgment was entered against him. At the time of the abuse, the teacher was covered by an "Educators Employment Liability Policy." The policy covers events which occur in the course of activities performed by the teacher pursuant to the express or implied terms of his employment. Case addressing whether sexual abuse is unrelated to a teacher’s employment and hence not within the coverage provided in the policy.
  • Plaintiff is the owner of a landscape maintenance business. One morning, two of his employees were working at one of Plaintiff's job site. Earlier in the day, one of the employees had driven a truck owned by Plaintiff to another one of his job sites. At lunchtime, the employees picked up the keys to the truck and started driving to lunch, and subsequently collided with a motorcycle. The motorcycle driver filed a personal injury action against the employees. In deposition for the personal injury action, Plaintiff stated that before the accident, he told the employees never to drive any of his vehicles. Coverage issue pertaining to whether permission is implied within the meaning of Ins. Code section 11580.1(b)(4) only when the third-party use was or should have been within the owner’s contemplation.
  • Between 1983 and 1988, Plaintiff and appellant obtained an annual series of "Comprehensive General Liability" (CGL) insurance policies from defendant and respondent insurance company. In addition, Plaintiff obtained a "Commercial Umbrella Liability Policy." Plaintiff was named as a defendant in a complaint and the case was settled for $1 million. Following execution of the settlement agreement, Plaintiff sent a demand to the insurer demanding reimbursement of his attorney fees and the settlement amount he had paid. Insurer rejected Plaintiff's demand based on its determination that Plaintiff had not made a claim for property damage or bodily injury within the meaning of the policies and that Plaintiff had not shown that any occurrence as defined by the policies gave rise to the underlying claim. Plaintiff filed a complaint against insurer, alleging that in failing to provide a defense to the action, insurer was guilty of breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Summary judgment was granted to insurance carrier where general liability did not cover “events”, but rather, “accidents”.
  • Plaintiffs and appellants purchased a house and subsequently obtained fire insurance on the property from defendant and respondent insurance company. The following year, the house was damaged by fire. Although the house could have been repaired, Plaintiffs decided not to make any repairs because they believed it made more economic sense to develop the parcel in conjunction with development of an adjacent parcel. Instead of repairing the damage on the house, within three months of the fire, Plaintiffs purchased another nearby single-family home. Following the fire, the amount of the fire loss was submitted to a panel of appraisers. The insurer paid Plaintiffs based on the appraiser's cash value of the property, which was less than the replacement cost. Plaintiffs filed a declaratory relief action and alleged that insurer was obligated to pay the replacement value of the loss, rather than the actual cash value. Insurer argued that because the house could have been repaired, Plaintiff was not entitled to the replacement cost of the loss.
  • Plaintiffs contend that at the time they purchased "vanishing premium" policies, insurer was paying a discretionary dividend rate which it had no intention of maintaining. The plaintiffs believe they have evidence which shows insurer in fact developed plans to "ratchet down" its dividend over time. Plaintiffs alleged violations of California's Unfair Competition Law (Bus. Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq. (UCL) and Consumer Legal Remedies Act (Civ. Code, § 1750 et seq.) (CLRA). Defendant insurer claimed plaintiffs' claims were not suitable for class treatment because each plaintiff will be required to make an individual showing of the representation he or she received.

view all

Probate, Estates & Trusts

  • An appeal stemming from an order submitting to probate a holographic instrument found by the trial court to be decedent’s will. The will was contested by decedent’s stepson on the basis (1) it was not signed with the intent to authenticate the document as a will, (2) it was executed without testamentary intent and (3) it was not dated as required by the law applicable to the document. The trial court rejected these claims and admitted the will to probate. The appellate court found that an instrument did not lack testamentary intent even though it might not have reflected the testatrix’s usual character and habit of exercising care with important legal documents, and though the instrument was changed from time to time, possibly even with the future intent of formalizing the will.
  • Case wherein creditors attempted to reach the property of a deceased spouse to satisfy a debt that had been incurred by the surviving spouse during the marriage. Issues included whether upon the death of one spouse, assumed liability for debt under the community property law continues, and whether, if such liability attaches to a deceased spouse's estate, the Legislature limited the time in which such liability may be asserted.

Special Master Appointment / Ethics

  • Appointed to Special Master panel in high profile case brought by the Commission on Judicial Performance against government attorney accused of ethical violations at trial. Following proceedings over nearly 5 months, the Special Masters panel concluded there was no violation of ethics.
  • Case regarding whether a party is entitled to more than one peremptory challenge if a case is reversed on appeal and reassigned to the same trial judge after remand.
  • Case regarding whether a voice-vote by a jury satisfy deliberation requirement Code of Civil Procedure section 613.