Panel corrects facts in ruling by conflicted judge

The 6th District Court of Appeal vacated a Santa Clara County judge's ruling after finding he owned stock in the parent company of two of the litigants.

The successful petitioner is a Sunnyvale attorney who represented himself. Naren Chaganti convinced the appellate court to issue a rare writ of coram vobis, correcting a superior court on an error of fact rather than an error of law.

In 2015, Chaganti filed a civil action for breach of contract, fraud, and negligence against AT&T Corp. over a lease on a commercial property Chaganti owned in Missouri. In 2018, Superior Court Judge Theodore C. Zayner ruled in favor of defendants Cricket Communications Inc. and New Cingular Wireless PCS LLC on two summary judgment motions. Chaganti subsequently lost a jury trial in front of a different judge on his remaining causes of action.

According to Monday's unanimous ruling written by Justice Franklin D. Elia, the defendants acknowledged Zayner's ruling "effectively gutted" Chaganti's case.

"In August 2019, Chaganti 'serendipitously discovered' Judge Zayner's 2018 Form 700," Elia wrote in Chaganti v. Superior Court, 2021 DJDAR 13171 (Cal. App. 6th, Dec. 27, 2021). This is a financial disclosure form public officials in California must submit. It listed ownership of between $10,001 and $100,000 in stock in AT&T, the parent company of Cricket and New Singular. Based on this information, Chaganti filed for a writ of coram vobis, citing the California Code of Civil Procedure to claim Zayner should have been disqualified.

"Real parties maintain that the judge was not disqualified because AT&T Corp.'s ownership of real parties did not make AT&T Corp. a 'party' to the proceeding within the meaning of section 170.1, subdivision (a) (3)(A)," Elia wrote. "They also assert that Chaganti is precluded from obtaining a writ of error coram vobis because he did not exercise due diligence in discovering the judge's AT&T Corp. stock ownership and did not otherwise satisfy the requirements to obtain such a writ. We conclude that Chaganti has satisfied his burden and order the superior court to vacate the judgment and the summary adjudication ruling."

Elia vacated Zayner's ruling and awarded Chaganti's costs. He denied his motion to vacate trial Judge JoAnne McCracken's rulings over conversations with Zayner.

"I am pleased that the court clarified the law on financial interest of judges," Chaganti said by email Tuesday. "And the coram vobis writ is rarely used in civil cases, which is likely due to the lack of case law explaining its use. This decision has explained very well the use of such a procedural device to correct certain things that litigants find out after the case is decided."

AT&T senior legal counsel Raymond P. Bolanos and other attorneys representing the company did not respond to emails seeking comment. Zayner did not respond to a request for comment.

There has been a wave of recusals following a September Wall Street Journal investigation that found 131 federal judges ruled in cases where they had a financial interest in litigants between 2010 and 2018.