What is the test for assignment of a new judge to a full or partial new trial in a reversed and remanded case?

Hendershot then sought writ relief and a stay of proceedings. In his application, he pointed out that a claim of error in denial of a peremptory [20 Cal.App.4th 863] challenge can only be reviewed by writ. ( 170.3, subd. (d); People v. Hull (1991) 1 Cal.4th 266, 276, 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 526, 820 P.2d 1036.) We issued an alternative writ and stayed proceedings pending our further order.

Prior to 1986, a case reversed and remanded for a full or partial new trial was normally assigned to the judge who heard the original trial, apparently on the theory that that judge was familiar with the case and in a better position to resolve the remaining issues. (See Stegs Investments v. Superior Court (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 572, 575, 284 Cal.Rptr. 495; People v. Gulbrandsen (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1547, 1562, 258 Cal.Rptr. 75.) The peremptory challenge statute was amended in 1985 to deal with this practice. This amendment, operative January 1, 1986, added a new provision to subdivision (2) of section 170.6: "A motion under this paragraph may be made following reversal on appeal of a trial court's decision if the trial judge in the prior proceeding is assigned to conduct a new trial on the matter. The motion shall be made within 60 days after the party or the party's attorney has been notified of the assignment."