What is a Peremptory Challenge (CCP 170.6)?

Useful Rulings on Peremptory Challenge - CCP 170.6

Recent Rulings on Peremptory Challenge - CCP 170.6

1-25 of 10000 results

THE CITIES OF DUARTE VS STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD AND CITY OF GARDENA VS REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD

The peremptory writ further commands that Respondents shall reconsider the Permit in light of the decision of this Court dated April 18, 2019. 3. Nothing in this judgment or the writ shall limit or control in any way the discretion legally vested in Respondents. 4. Petitioners shall recover their costs in this proceeding in the amount of $_____.

  • Hearing

    Jun 20, 2021

ANGELA WATSON VS GILBERT A. CABOT

This provision is commonly invoked to challenge pleadings filed in violation of a deadline, court order, or requirement of prior leave of court. (Ferraro, supra, 161 Cal.App.4th at 528.) Defendants move to strike portions of the Third Amended Complaint pertaining to Plaintiff’s request for punitive damages and attorney’s fees, as well as: The words "professional Hollywood shyster" TAC ¶ 10 at 3:13; The words commencing "Specifically, on or about" through "and Mary Margaret Humes (Case No.

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

PISMO BEACH SELF-STORAGE, L.P. V. CITY OF PISMO BEACH, ET AL.

The first problem the Court has with Petitioner’s position is its attempt to challenge “conduct” by the City prior to its adoption of the Resolution. “Conduct” is a broad term, and the Court is unclear what specific conduct Petitioner seeks to challenge, inasmuch as its opening brief referenced two specific acts: the adoption of the Resolution, and the DIFs assessed under the Resolution. “Conduct,” on the other hand, can potentially mean a wide variety of activities.

  • Hearing

    Sep 26, 2020

CITY OF GOLETA V. DONALD FRIEDMAN, ET AL.

City’s reply relies upon precedence given to eminent domain matters, and necessity that right to take issues be determined early so that a public entity may determine whether a construction project may be placed at risk by a potentially meritorious challenge to the right to take. It contends that parties need to adapt to pandemic conditions, with respect to taking depositions and conducting other discovery.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

EVANS V. LE GRAND MAISON, LLC

Superior Court (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 383, a property owner may challenge a mechanic’s lien via motion. (Id. at 387). As explained in Howard S. Wright Construction Co. v. Superior Court (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 314, “[a] motion to remove a mechanic’s lien is recognized as a device that allows the property owner to obtain speedy relief from an unjustified lien or a lien of an unjustified amount without waiting for trial on the action to foreclose the lien.” (Id. at 318).

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

SALISBURY GROUP, INC. V. EDALAT

The challenge is limited to the “four corners” of the pleading (which includes exhibits attached and incorporated therein) and matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable under Evidence Code §§ 451 or 452. Although California courts take a liberal view of inartfully drawn complaints, it remains essential that a complaint set forth the actionable facts relied upon with sufficient precision to inform the defendant what plaintiff is complaining about and what remedies are being sought.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

CANYON VIEW LIMITED VS. LAKEVIEW LOAN SERVICE, LLC

Any challenge to the right to recovery fees and costs will not be considered. The motion remains unopposed. Prior to the hearing date, Plaintiff’s counsel reached out to the court regarding a continuance of the hearing date. The court reserved November 4, 2020. The hearing is therefore continued to the November date. Any opposition and reply shall conform to the statutory deadlines of the new date. Plaintiff to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

IAN CAMPBELL VS PYLE IRREVOCABLE TRUST ET AL

If “there has been a complete failure of service of process upon a defendant, he generally has no duty to take affirmative action to preserve his right to challenge the judgment or order even if he later obtains actual knowledge of it because ‘[w]hat is initially void is ever void and life may not be breathed into it by lapse of time.’” (Id. at 1229 (citation omitted).)

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

CYNTHIA FLORES VS SHARON CARE CENTER, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

If the party’s challenge is directed to the agreement as a whole--even if it applies equally to the delegation clause--the delegation clause is severed out and enforced; thus, the arbitrator, not the court, will determine whether the agreement is enforceable.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

EDUARDO VALENCIA CARDENAS VS MISSION COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, ET AL.

Nor did the declaration “opine that surgery would have produced a better outcome” or “challenge or even address [the defendant's expert's] opinion that what happened to plaintiff's hand … was a potential outcome of both treatments [i.e., surgery or casting].” (Id. at p. 781.) The plaintiff’s expert offered “no reasoned explanation connecting the factual predicates to the ultimate conclusion [Citation], and that is the very definition of a purely conclusory opinion.”

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

PEGGY HILL VS UCLA, ET AL.

It is not the function of the demurrer to challenge the truthfulness of the complaint; and for purpose of the ruling on the demurrer, all facts pleaded in the complaint are assumed to be true, however improbable they may be. (Code Civ. Proc., §§422.10, 589.) A demurrer can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack; or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

PHILLIP BAIZ VS. CITY OF SACRAMENTO

BACKGROUND A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the pleading and can only be used to challenge defects appearing on the face of the pleading or from exhibits attached thereto. (Donadedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994; Barnett v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 500, 505.) The court assumes the truth of “all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.” (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

PHILLIP BAIZ VS. CITY OF SACRAMENTO

BACKGROUND A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the pleading and can only be used to challenge defects appearing on the face ofthe pleading or from exhibits attached thereto. {Donadedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 CaI.App.4"' 968, 994; Barnett v. Fireman's Fundlns. Co. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4'^ 500, 505.) The court assumes the truth of "all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law." {Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311,318.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

CLARK & TREVITHICK, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION VS JO-ANN GRACE, ET AL.

It is not the function of the demurrer to challenge the truthfulness of the complaint; and for purpose of the ruling on the demurrer, all facts pleaded in the complaint are assumed to be true, however improbable they may be. (Code Civ. Proc., §§422.10, 589.) A demurrer can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack; or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

KIM D MIDDLETON ET AL VS HOLLYWOOD HEALTH CENTER INC ET AL

App. 4th 1058, 1060, 1067-68 (2009) (recognizing that Doe defendants may challenge a plaintiff’s use of the Doe amendment procedure authorized by section 474 “by way of an evidence-based motion, which argues that the plaintiff ‘unreasonably delayed’ his or her filing of the challenged amendment.”).

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

PARSIG CHOULJIAN VS TOTAL RENAL CARE INC.

Issues in the Complaint The duty to define the issues presented by the complaint and to challenge them factually is on the defendant seeking summary judgment. (Pultz v. Holgerson (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 1110, 1114.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MARCONI V. CRIBBS

Thus Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (f) could properly be utilized to challenge the separate and distinct matter even though the real parties in interest combined it with an unrelated matter in the same cause of action. (12 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1854– 1855, 16 Cal.Rptr.2d 458.)” (Catalano v. Superior Court (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 91, 96–97.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

ENRIQUE QUINTANA VS ANA L QUINTANA

It is not the function of the demurrer to challenge the truthfulness of the complaint; and for purpose of the ruling on the demurrer, all facts pleaded in the complaint are assumed to be true, however improbable they may be. (Code Civ. Proc., §§422.10, 589.) A demurrer can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack; or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

HORACE WILLIAMS JR. ET AL. VS OCWEN LOAN SERVICING ET AL.

MOTION TO CHALLENGE JURISDICTION MOTIONS TO CORRECT ERROR MOTIONS FOR STAY Moving Party: Plaintiff Theresa Williams Responding Party: Defendants Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, et al.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

ENRIQUE QUINTANA VS ANA L QUINTANA

It is not the function of the demurrer to challenge the truthfulness of the complaint; and for purpose of the ruling on the demurrer, all facts pleaded in the complaint are assumed to be true, however improbable they may be. (Code Civ. Proc., §§422.10, 589.) A demurrer can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack; or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

JERROLD MARTIN VS BRIGHTVIEW COMPANIES LLC ET AL

In the event the court is persuaded at the hearing that cross-defendant Champion has standing to challenge the fourth cause of action, the demurrer to that cause of action will be overruled on its merits as well.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ZAKIR SARANG VS FOX RENT A CAR, INC., ET AL.

In opposition, Plaintiff does not challenge the existence of the arbitration agreement. Instead, Plaintiff argues that his wage and hour claims cannot be arbitrated pursuant to Labor Code section 299, and his other claims seek public injunctive relief, which cannot be arbitrated under the McGill rule. (Opposition, Notice p.i No.1-2.) Applicability of the Federal Arbitration Act “A party seeking to enforce an arbitration agreement has the burden of showing FAA preemption.” (Lane v. Francis Capital Mgmt.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

CARUSO VS UNION BANK

Again, this returns to the challenge of this lawsuit – the pleadings do not assert a claim under the FEHA or other statutory anti-discrimination laws, nor do the pleadings even assert wrongful termination.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

EADS AVENUE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION VS PETER RIX

As to the merits of this motion, the Bojaks do not challenge the hourly rate of Zeimberoff Deutsch (ZD) or the hourly rates Rix-Li seek for Kushner Carlson (KC).

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Contract - Other

ARROWOOD MASTER ASSOCIATION VS ZURAWSKI

Cross-complainants challenge this, citing two cases where a legislative change was made while a case was pending (Salazar v. Diversified Para Transit (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 318; People v. Tirey (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1255) and a third where there was an ambiguity in existing law and a statutory amendment clarified that ambiguity (Western Security Bank v. Superior Court (Beverly Hills Business Bank) (1997) 15 Cal.4th 232). At present, it appears that the HOA has the better argument.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Contract - Other

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 400     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.