NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

OPINION

KING, J.

INTRODUCTION

In this matter, we have reviewed the petition and offered real parties in interest the opportunity to file opposition; none has been received. We have determined that resolution of the matter involves the application of settled principles of law, and that issuance of a peremptory writ in the first instance is therefore appropriate. (Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 178.)

DISCUSSION

While the minute order rejecting petitioners' peremptory challenge recites that "Judge Pacheco remains as all-purpose judge," the record provided by petitioners shows that there was no existing order of appointment at that time. While an order was entered on December 17, 2010, transferring the case to a "new department," that order did not specify which department or judge would handle the case. Petitioners confirm that it received no notice of any appointment of Judge Pacheco, and this has not been refuted.

Although Judge Pacheco no doubt believed the peremptory challenge to be untimely, the record does not support this conclusion. The challenge was therefore timely and should have been accepted.

DISPOSITION

Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandate is granted.

Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue, directing the Superior Court of San Bernardino County to vacate its order rejecting the peremptory challenge to Judge Pacheco filed by petitioners, and to accept the challenge and assign the matter to another judge.

Petitioners are directed to prepare and have the peremptory writ of mandate issued, copies served, and the original filed with the clerk of this court, together with proof of service on all parties.

No opposition having been received, this order shall be final forthwith. In the interests of justice, no costs are awarded.

We concur:

RAMIREZ, P. J.

McKINSTER, J.