Under CCP 170.6, a party may peremptorily challenge a judge who presided at a prior trial of the action if the judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for a new trial.  However, as Peracchi v. Superior Court (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1245 held, a new trial is “a reexamination of an issue of fact in the same court after a trial and decision by a jury, court or referee.”  When an appellate court reverses and remands for redetermination of a motion that does not involve an evaluation of the merits of the underlying action, section 170.6(a)(2), is not triggered.  Here, the case had been remanded for the trial court to hear a Batson hearing on whether the defendant had used peremptory challenges to eliminate Hispanic jurors, and if so, to order a new trial.  Plaintiff’s 170.6 motion was premature.  The Batson hearing would not involve redetermining any fact determined at the first trial.  Only if the trial court then ordered a retrial would the plaintiff be able to exercise a 170.6 challenge.