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

CALIFORNIA DUI LAWYERS ASSN ET AL VS CALIFORNIA DEPT OF MOTO

The remaining costs that have not been withdrawn by Plaintiffs, and that Defendants challenge, are not explicitly authorized or prohibited by Code Civ. Proc. § 1033.5. The Court denies such costs exercising its discretion under Code Civ. Proc. § 1033.5(c)(4). Plaintiffs provide no admissible evidence that it was reasonably necessary to use their chosen delivery methods or an attorney service.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

SHAFFER V RICE RANCH COMMUNITY LLC

As noted above, a demurrer can be used to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable. (Blank, supra, 39 Cal.3d at p. 318.) Since the court has taken judicial notice of the date, it may be used to challenge the pleading. Plaintiffs assert that “facts show without question that Shea Homes made numerous and ongoing attempts to repair the construction defects at the Shaffers’ home.” (Opposition, p. 2, ll. 18-19.)

  • Hearing

JENNIFER HERRINGTON V THE NATURE CONSERVANCY ET AL

On August 21, 2020, plaintiff filed a peremptory challenge against Judge Staffel. The case was thereafter assigned to this department by order dated August 26, 2020. On September 14, 2020, the court sustained defendants’ demurrer to the FAC with leave to amend, including the demurrer of TNC-CA based on plaintiff’s failure to adequately allege her status as an employee. The SAC was filed September 25, 2020. TNC-CA filed its demurrer to the SAC on October 28, 2020. Opposition has been filed.

  • Hearing

DAVID LAHYANI VS ROBERT SCOTT REHLING ET AL

It is not the function of the demurrer to challenge the truthfulness of the complaint; and for purposes of the ruling on the demurrer, all facts pleaded in the complaint are assumed to be true. (Donabedian, 116 Cal.App.4th at 994.) 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; Donabedian, supra, 116 Cal.App.4th at 994.)

  • Hearing

JINKUN CHA, ET AL. VS PACIFIC EXPRESSWAY, INC., A CORPORATION , ET AL.

It is not the function of the demurrer to challenge the truthfulness of the complaint; and for purposes of the ruling on the demurrer, all facts pleaded in the complaint are assumed to be true. (Donabedian, 116 Cal.App.4th at 994.) 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; Donabedian, supra, 116 Cal.App.4th at 994.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

BAHRAM JARIDIAN VS SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC., 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

ODALYS FACIO BRISENO VS BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY (CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE), A CALIFORNIA PUBLIC ENTITY, E

It is not the function of the demurrer to challenge the truthfulness of the complaint; and for purposes of the ruling on the demurrer, all facts pleaded in the complaint are assumed to be true. (Donabedian, 116 Cal.App.4th at 994.) 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; Donabedian, supra, 116 Cal.App.4th at 994.)

  • Hearing

TABAG VS MONTANO

However, Defendant's challenge fails both procedurally and substantively. Procedurally, Code of Civil Procedure section 225 governs challenges to a trial jury. That section requires notice to the jury commissioner. Defendant has not given notice. Second, Defendant has failed to make a prima facie showing that there is a violation of the fair cross-section requirement.

  • Hearing

YANG NAM KIM VS KOREA SENIOR CITIZENS MUTUAL CLUB, A CALIFORNIA 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

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

JANE DOE VS DAVID DANON

The court continued the hearing date to September 3, 2020, but on that date granted a Peremptory Challenged filed by the Plaintiff. The case was then transferred to this Department on September 4, 2020, along with the related cases 18STCV09829 and 18SMSC03542, and other hearings were advanced and vacated. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled in this action to proceed as an anonymous party has thus not yet been determined. No briefing is presently before the court on the issue.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

EXPRESS RESTORATION VS SHIH

If the cross-defendant still wishes to challenge the pleading, the cross-defendant shall comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41 by meeting and conferring with cross-complainant’s counsel, either in person or by telephone, concerning the sufficiency of the Cross-Complaint. If the cross-complainant does not agree to amend, the cross- defendants shall file either an answer or a new demurrer no later than December 15, 2020.

  • Hearing

DAVID BABAIE, ET AL. VS TRANS WEST INVESTIGATIONS, INC., A 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

SHEETZ V. COUNTY OF EL DORADO

The court will now consider petitioner’s constitutional challenge to the imposition of the TIM fee. Constitutional Challenge to Fee Petitioner Sheetz argues: the California Supreme Court in its opinion in San Remo Hotel L.P. v.

  • Hearing

PEDRO GONZALEZ CRUZ, ET AL. VS JAMES WOOD PROPERTIES, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

Defendant did not file a reply to challenge Plaintiff’s request for leave to amend. Accordingly, the Demurrer is SUSTAINED with 20 days’ leave to amend. IV. CONCLUSION Defendants’ Demurrer is SUSTAINED with 20 days’ leave to amend. Moving party to give notice. Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at [email protected] indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CYRUS CHADY VS PEDRAM SHAMEKH ET AL

On July 21, 2020, the court accepted Chady’s Peremptory Challenge and this matter was reassigned to the instant Dept. 78. On August 26, 2020, the instant demurrer and motion to strike were re-set for hearing. On November 9, 2020, Chady filed an Opposition to each the Demurrer and Motion to Strike. On November 18, 2020, Weiss and Zaman filed a Reply to each motion.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

GEORGE SANTOPIETRO VS JAMES HARDEN, ET AL.

In his opposition Wiseman does not challenge any specific billing entries. “In challenging attorney fees as excessive because too many hours of work are claimed, it is the burden of the challenging party to point to the specific items challenged, with a sufficient argument and citations to the evidence. General arguments that fees claimed are excessive, duplicative, or unrelated do not suffice. Failure to raise specific challenges in the trial court forfeits the claim on appeal.”

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

RAVELL PIERCE, AN INDIVIDUAL VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, A PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.

LEGAL STANDARD The filing of an amended complaint renders a challenge to a prior complaint as moot. (See JKC3H8 v. Colton (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 468, 477.) “[A]n amendatory pleading supersedes the original one, which ceases to perform any function as a pleading.” (Foreman & Clark Corp. v. Fallon (1971) 3 Cal.3d 875, 884.) DISCUSSION Plaintiff’s filing of a second amended complaint after Defendant LACMTA filed this demurrer and motion to strike renders the demurrer and motion to strike as moot.

  • Hearing

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

On July 21, 2020, the court accepted Chady’s Peremptory Challenge and this matter was reassigned to the instant Dept. 78. On August 26, 2020, the instant demurrer and motion to strike were re-set for hearing. On November 9, 2020, Chady filed an Opposition to each the Demurrer and Motion to Strike. On November 18, 2020, Weiss and Zaman filed a Reply to each motion.

  • Hearing

BORDEN VS AMAZON.COM, INC

Plaintiff does not challenge the validity of Defendants’ proposed amendments. Instead, Plaintiff argues that the motion is untimely because Defendants learned about potential claims, including claims related to Plaintiff’s hernia, through discovery. But learning these facts through discovery did not put Defendants on notice that Plaintiff would attempt to present these claims to the jury.

  • Hearing

MOHAMMAD MEHDI-MOLLANOURI SHAMSI VS SUSAN GANS, ET AL.

Motion to Challenge an Application for a Determination of a Good Faith Settlement Having considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows. BACKGROUND On June 5, 2020, Plaintiff Mohammad Mehdi Mollanouri Shamsi (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Susan L. Gans (“Defendant Gans”) and Kenneth Horwitz (“Defendant Horwitz”).

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

In that case, the court denied a stay of the unlawful detainer action because the separate actions presented an “indirect challenge to title.” (Id. at p. 467.) However, that case recognized there are types of challenges presented in separate actions that create a basis for a stay of an unlawful detainer action. (Id. at p. 466.) Plaintiff also argues the Court cannot stay this case because it previously denied a motion to stay, but Plaintiff cites no law for that assertion. Defendant cites Martin-Bragg v.

  • Hearing

LABARBER VS DIAMOND AUTO EXCHANGE INC

Defendants lack standing to challenge this cause of action and the Demurrer is OVERRULED as to this cause of action. Defendant is to file a responsive pleading within 10 days.

  • Hearing

HANI MAMMO VS ATHAS CAPITAL GROUP, INC, ET AL.

On this basis the court sustains the demurrer with leave to amend. 3rd Cause of Action: Unfair Business Practice Defendants challenge the allegations for unfair competition. Plaintiff in opposition requests leave to amend. Defendants in reply request no leave to amend. This is the first demurrer before the court. The demurrer is sustained with 30 days leave to amend. A hearing for sanctions is set on the calendar for February 16, 2021. Defendants to give notice.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

GREGORY LUCAS VS CITY OF POMONA

It is not unusual for business interests whose operations are directly affected by a government project to raise a CEQA challenge to the government's environmental analysis….Such parties are “‘in fact adversely affected by governmental action’” and have standing in their own right to challenge that action.” Ibid. (quoting Carsten v. Psychology Examining Com., (1980) 27 Cal.3d 793, 796) (emphasis added). Reply at 3-4.

  • Hearing

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 load this page.