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

GIOVANNA WILKERSON VS OCEAN PROPERTIES

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 24, 2020

GIOVANNA WILKERSON VS JON LEVIN

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 24, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

CHERYL MAISEL VS COUNTRY GLEN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. A CALIFORNIA NON-PROFIT CORPORATION, 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 23, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

CHRISTIE WARD VS. CALIFORNIA PRISON INDUSTRY AUTHORITY

The Court finds no basis for applying the independent judgment test in this challenge to an SPB decision. III. Discussion A.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

LETICIA MUNOZ OLMOS, ET AL. VS JRDTSP LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY DBA SCOTT ROBINSON CHRYSLER DODGE JEEP RAM, ET AL.

Legal Standard 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, 318.) No other extrinsic evidence can be considered. A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal. App. 4th 740, 747.) When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. (Taylor v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

SUVA INVESTORS, LLC VS JOFRE TRADING COMPANY, LLC

Defendant failed to challenge the reasonableness of Plaintiff’s attorney’s fees. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

ELADIA ERAZO NAJERA, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS LA CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

However, the Choi Defendants do not actually challenge the sufficiency of LA Condo/Karpel’s fraud causes of action—i.e., that those causes of action fail to state a claim. The court finds that LA Condo/Karpel’s fraud claims are sufficient because LA Condo/Karpel sufficiently pled the material facts that they contend were concealed (LA Condo/Karpel Cross-Complaint, ¶¶ 44-45) and sufficiently pled the Choi Defendants’ affirmative misrepresentations (Id., ¶¶ 52-55).

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

SAGE TELECOMMUNICATIONS INC ET AL VS D-LINK SYSTEMS INC

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. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 430.30, 430.70; Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal 3d 311, 318; Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters. (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal. App. 3d 902, 905.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

KIMBERLY FAY, ET AL. VS GLENN SOLOMON, ET AL.

Defendants Matthew Solomon and Marion Solomon—who did not file a demurrer as to the complaint but are demurring to the FAC—have a right to challenge the sufficiency of the second, fourth, and fifth causes of action in the FAC. Irrespective of that fact, the Court finds that the FAC makes additional allegations—which were not raised in the initial complaint— that render such causes of action subject to demurrer. Thus, the Court will address the sufficiency of such causes of action.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

TRASK PROPERTIES III, LLC VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

In any event, Petitioner’s challenge to APC’s findings under section 12.24.E.3 is based entirely on its arguments that wetlands are not present on the Property and would not be impacted. For the reasons stated above, substantial evidence supports APC’s findings regarding the presence of wetlands and the Project’s impact on wetlands. Based on the foregoing, APC’s findings under sections 12.20.2 and 12.24.E are supported by substantial evidence.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

LAUREN B. VS KF COMMUNITY CARE, LLC, ET AL.

First, the court agrees with Arjona that affirmative defenses 1, 9, 13 and 14 are sufficiently stated because they challenge the sufficiency of Plaintiff’s Complaint. Additional facts need not be plead in support of these affirmative defenses and Plaintiff has cited to no authority which demonstrates that these affirmative defenses are specifically insufficient. Second the court finds that affirmative defenses 4, 5, 6 and 16 are insufficiently stated.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

RICHARD PETERSON VS DITECH FINANCIAL LLC, ET AL.

Like demurrers, motions for judgment on the pleadings challenge the legal sufficiency of the allegations, not their veracity. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) The Court “must accept as true all material facts properly pleaded, but does not consider conclusions of law or fact, opinions, speculation, or allegations contrary to law or facts that are judicially noticed.” (Stevenson Real Estate Services, Inc. v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

CANYON VIEW LIMITED VS. THE BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.

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 18, 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 22, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

HOSSEINI VS. R&R ACCOUNTING AND TAX SERVICES

A demurrer can only be used to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) No other extrinsic evidence can be considered. (Ion Equip. Corp. v. Nelson (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 868, 881.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

SEAN O?BRIEN, ET AL. VS DOWNTOWN LA LAW GROUP, LLP, A BUSINESS ENTITY FORM UNKNOWN, ET AL.

Because the requested information may lead to admissible evidence that would directly challenge DTLA’s defenses against Plaintiff’s breach of fiduciary duty claims, the parties are to split evenly the costs of providing this notice. Fourth, DTLA argues in its opposition that the physician-patient privilege prevents disclosure of patient identities. Opp. 3. Defendant did not raise this objection in its responses, as is required by section 2030.240(b). See Bechtel Decl. Ex. B at 5-6.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

AIMCO VENEZIA LLC VS PEDRO MARUGAN VALLEJO

Homeward Residential, Inc. (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 270, 280 (facts alleged in the pleading are deemed to be true, however improbable they may be; defendants challenge of grant deed’s validity was an issue of triable fact for the trier of fact to decide). 2nd cause of action for trespass: Trespass is sufficiently alleged. See CACI 2000; Civic Western Corp. v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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

ULRS, INC., VS CLINTOX LABORATORIES, INC.,, ET AL.

Discussion 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, 318.) “To survive a demurrer, the complaint need only allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action; each evidentiary fact that might eventually form part of the plaintiff's proof need not be alleged.” (C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School Dist. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 861, 872.)

  • 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

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

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.