LA now requires a disclosure declaration with every section 170.6 challenge

What changed

• A verified written declaration, or an oral attestation under penalty of perjury, must accompany a section 170.6 challenge.
• It must list every case in the past year in which the party, attorney or firm challenged that same judge, plus an approximation of the total cases assigned to that judge in the period.
• Anyone with two or fewer challenges against that judge in the preceding year is exempt.

Where the order comes from

In J.O. v. Superior Court of San Joaquin County (2026) 19 Cal.5th 753, the California Supreme Court held that bad faith blanket use of section 170.6 is open to scrutiny, displacing the long-standing assumption that a peremptory challenge is simply unreviewable. The court set out the harms it had in mind: shopping for a preferred judge, delay, striking a judge over their views on the law or their personality, punishing a judge for past rulings, and challenges used as a vehicle for racial discrimination.

General Order 2026-GEN-010-00, issued July 28, 2026 and effective immediately, is how the Superior Court of Los Angeles County has implemented that decision.

What has to be filed

The declaration or attestation must give the name and case number of every case in which the party and/or the attorney or law firm made a section 170.6 challenge to the challenged judge within the previous year, together with a reasonable approximation of the total number of cases that party or firm has had assigned to that judge in the same period. For confidential or sealed cases, only the case number is required.

It is due when the challenge is made, unless the court finds good cause to extend — in which case it must be filed and served, or the oral attestation made, by the end of the next court day. Notice of the challenge and the declaration must be served on all parties as soon as practicable and no later than five days after the challenge, unless all parties were in court when it was made.

The court has published an updated optional form, Peremptory Challenge to Judicial Officer (XLIT-035).

The consequences are narrower than they first appear

Non-compliance may draw lawful sanctions for violating a court order — but it does not affect the validity of the challenge itself. The order deliberately separates the disclosure duty from the challenge’s effect.

An objection to a section 170.6 challenge must be made within a reasonable time after notice is given.

Why a client might hear about this at all

For most people this is invisible plumbing. It becomes visible if the other side objects to a challenge, or if counsel declines to strike a judge they would previously have struck without a second thought. The disclosure makes a firm’s pattern legible to the court, and a firm with a pattern has a new reason to weigh each challenge.

If judge assignment is being discussed in your case, what the strike is for — and what your firm’s history with that judge looks like — is a fair question to ask.

Who this affects

• Litigants in Los Angeles County whose counsel is considering a peremptory challenge
• Firms and public offices that appear repeatedly before the same judges
• Self-represented parties filing their own challenge, who are subject to the same order unless the two-or-fewer exemption applies

Source & how to verify

The Court’s Notice to Attorneys announcing General Order 2026-GEN-010-00 (July 28, 2026), the general order itself, and the underlying decision in J.O. v. Superior Court of San Joaquin County (2026) 19 Cal.5th 753.

Read the general order and the opinion, not a description of either. General orders are amended and superseded — check the Court’s general orders page for the current version before relying on any detail here, and confirm which version of the form the Court is currently posting.