Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Plaintiffs’ attorneys in the California Microsoft Corp. antitrust case fired their second bullet Thursday to remove San Francisco Judge Richard Kramer from the case. After failing to get Kramer to recuse himself for cause, the class action attorneys dumped him with a peremptory challenge. “Judge Richard A. Kramer, before whom this action is not pending, is prejudiced against the interests of plaintiffs so that I believe plaintiffs cannot have a fair and impartial trial before Judge Kramer,” Oakland, Calif., attorney Jeffrey Parish said in a declaration accompanying his challenge. The judge did not return calls to his chambers Thursday seeking a response. The Code of Civil Procedure � 170.6 challenge caps a week of furious exchanges between the plaintiffs’ attorneys and the judge. Lawyers in Coordination Proceedings 4106, a group of about 30 antitrust and unfair business practice cases filed against Microsoft, first tried to pick off Kramer because of his ownership of between $10,001 and $100,000 stock in the software giant. The judge replied that he sold his Microsoft shares along with about a dozen other stocks months before he was assigned to the case Jan. 4. That didn’t satisfy the plaintiffs’ attorneys, who alleged that he still had a fondness and bias for Microsoft, which could keep him from being fair-minded. Kramer protested that he even sold the stock at a loss. “I hold no bias regarding any matter which will interfere with my being fair and impartial in this case,” he wrote in his reply. But the plaintiffs’ attorneys were not convinced and proceeded to take the step they said they had hoped to avoid: the peremptory challenge. In doing so, the attorneys walked into the unknown. They don’t have any idea which judge Presiding Judge Ronald Quidachay will assign to the case. Kramer replaced Judge Stuart Pollak, who is being elevated to California’s 1st District Court of Appeal. Pollak was a plaintiffs’ darling. Quidachay said Thursday that he was concerned whether a � 170.6 motion was timely. He thought the challenge for cause would go to the Judicial Council for the selection of an out-of-town judge to hear the matter. Now he’s faced with making a choice from someone on his own bench. Parish said there was no provision for a hearing on the peremptory challenge, either by Kramer or by Microsoft attorneys. “It’s automatic, and it’s timely,” he said. “It’s timely if not early.” The case had been set for trial Aug. 19. Kramer had set Jan. 31 for a status conference on the case.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.