How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site.
    Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Maverick Your Own Question
Maverick, Attorney
Category: CA Real Estate
Satisfied Customers: 5717
Experience:  20 years experience as a civil trial and appellate lawyer
Type Your CA Real Estate Question Here...
Maverick is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

Is a declaration in support of motion for recusal of Judge

Customer Question

is a declaration in support of motion for recusal of Judge necessary with a filing of a ccp 170.1(A)(6)(iii)
Submitted: 1 month ago.
Category: CA Real Estate
Expert:  LawTalk replied 1 month ago.

Good morning,

I'm Doug, and I'm sorry to hear of the confusion. My goal is to provide you with excellent service today.

The Motion you refer to is actually a CCP section 170.6 motion and along with the Motion for Peremptory Challenge you do need to also submit a declaration or Affidavit in substantially the same form as is found in CCP section 170.6 (a)(6) of the code, as seen here:

Here is some additional information which, while posted by the Sacramento Law Library, applies statewide:

You may reply back to me using the Reply link and I will be happy to continue to assist you until I am able to address your concerns, to your satisfaction.

I hope that I have been able to fully answer your question. As I am not an employee of JustAnswer, please be so kind as to rate my service to you. That is the only way I am compensated for assisting you. Thank you in advance.

I wish you and yours the best in 2016,


Expert:  LawTalk replied 1 month ago.

This seems like a very crucial matter for you, and your questions and issues suggest that an in-depth conversation might best suit your needs. If you are interested, for a very nominal charge I can offer you a private phone conference as opposed to continuing in this question and answer thread which is searchable and viewable by the public.

Please know that I answered your question in good faith, providing you with the information that you asked for, and I did that with the expectation that you would act likewise and rate my service to you. If I have already provided you with the information you asked for and you have no additional questions, would you please now rate my service to you so I can be compensated for assisting you?

Thanks in advance,


Customer: replied 1 month ago.
Something is very strange here. when I looked at this response on my cell phone while in court at approximately 11 am on August 29, 2016 and the Attorney who answered said that he had been a Real Estate Broker for a number of years and sounded like just what I was looking for. You don't sound like the same guy. I can't give you a good rating because I asked you about a ccp 170.1 you are proceeding to explain a 170.6 a simpler version of the same thing. I had already prepared my response before reading your response and my ccp 170.1 did have the judge recused and it had nothing to do with your response to a 170.6. If I could get connected with the Attorney who had been a Broker I do have more questions that I would be willing to pay for. But your advice was not relevant to my question so I can't give you a rating that I'm willing to pay for.
Expert:  LawTalk replied 1 month ago.

I am unable to further assist you in this matter, and I am going to opt out of your question and open this up for other professionals.

Your question is being placed back in the question list for other professionals to see, and to respond to. You do not have to stay online for the question to be active. Should another professional pick it up, you should be alerted by email unless you actively disable this feature.

There is no need for you to reply at this time as this may "lock" your question back to me, thus inadvertently delaying other professionals' access to it.

I apologize for any inconvenience and wish you well in your future.


Expert:  Maverick replied 1 month ago.

Welcome to Just Answer! My name is Maverick. Please give me a few minutes to review, analyze and/or research your inquiry and I will be back. Thank you for your patience.

Expert:  Maverick replied 1 month ago.

The 170.1 statute that you refer to states in part:

(iii) A person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that the judge would be able to be impartial.

Anytime that you have to prove up facts it is always a good idea to back your motion up with an affidavit or declaration that sets forth the facts that would support the motion. In the alternative, those facts would have to be established by testimony at the disqualification hearing. I know that 170.6 spell this out but for some reason 170.1 does not.

Please state what other questions you have.

Please Note: (1) Just Answer’s site disclaimers apply to all levels of service; (2) Most follow-up questions are answered with in the hour; however, if I am not signed on, please allow up to 24 hours; and (3) If we are done, please assign a feedback rating so Just Answer will compensate me for your question. Thank you for using Just Answer.

Related CA Real Estate Questions