This petition arises from a California civil action in which a privately compensated discovery referee, whose impartiality was formally questioned, was nevertheless permitted to continue acting and to recommend terminating sanctions. During the disqualification proceedings, the trial court allowed opposing counsel to advocate for the referee's neutrality, and it refused to hear lay testimony demonstrating reasonable doubt as to impartiality. The trial court then denied Petitioners' motion to disqualify the referee, adopted the referee's terminating-sanction recommendations, entered default, vacated Petitioners' jury-trial date, and ordered more than $500,000 in attorney's fees in conjunction with the default order, with further proceedings threatening the forced sale of Petitioners' home. The case presents recurring questions under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause concerning the constitutional limits on state procedures that allow a challenged adjudicator to continue exercising judicial power.

1. Whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is violated when a state court allows a privately compensated discovery referee, acting in a quasi-judicial capacity and whose impartiality has been formally challenged, to continue exercising judicial authority and to issue termination-sanction recommendations while a disqualification motion was pending, thereby depriving litigants of their constitutional right to a neutral and impartial decisionmaker.

2. Whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is violated when, contrary to mandatory judicial-disqualification procedures, a state court permits opposing counsel to advocate for the challenged referee's impartiality, refuses to consider lay testimony demonstrating reasonable doubt as to neutrality, and then adopts the referee's termination-sanction recommendations before the disqualification motion concludes, resulting in default, deprivation of property, and the loss of Petitioners' fundamental right to a civil jury trial as protected by the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of due process.

Whether a state court violates due process by allowing a privately compensated discovery referee to continue exercising judicial authority after their impartiality has been formally challenged