What is a Peremptory Challenge (CCP 170.6)?

Useful Resources for Peremptory Challenge - CCP 170.6

Recent Rulings on Peremptory Challenge - CCP 170.6

226-250 of 10000 results

NUNEZ VS CORONA

Although the Opposition papers challenge the moving declarations (see Opp. Brf. p. 9 and Plff’s AUMF 89 et seq.), the Defendants in the present case all affirmed in their depositions that the factual content in their moving declarations was true. (See Opp. Ex. 2, pp. 61, 71, 120 to 125; Opp. Ex. 6, pp. 12-14; Opp. Ex. 3 pp. 135 – 142, 158-59, 185-90.) In short, there is no similar record of prior, material, false exculpatory statements to create a triable issue on credibility.

  • Hearing

    Dec 21, 2020

DONNA FORD, ET AL. VS LUCKY WHITE

Plaintiffs have not filed an opposition and do not challenge these assertions. Defense counsel Brian K. Williams has attested that all Plaintiffs were served with Special Interrogatories, Set One on July 28, 2020 and that no responses were received as of November 1, 2020 despite Plaintiffs being granted extensions. Thus, Defendant’s motion is granted as to Plaintiff Ford.

  • Hearing

    Dec 21, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ALLISON LEWINSON, ET AL. VS KAMYAR COHANSHOHET, M.D., 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 February 6, 2019, Plaintiffs Matthew Lewinson and Allison Lewinson (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendants Kamyar Cohanshohet, M.D. (“Defendant Cohanshohet”) and Ayn Pharmacy Corp dba The Prescription Center (“Defendant Pharmacy”).

  • Hearing

    Dec 21, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

SAVE THE FIELD VS DEL MAR UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT

Introduction This Petition involves a challenge to the Respondent's plan to demolish and rebuild Del Mar Heights Elementary School, located at 13555 Boquita Drive in Del Mar ("Rebuild Project"). The reconfigured school will not have a larger student population, but will have a slightly expanded footprint and will include a slightly reduced open space area. The School is located within the Coastal Zone and is immediately adjacent to the Torrey Pines State Reserve Extension.

  • Hearing

    Dec 21, 2020

SLAYTON VS CITY OF SANTA ANA

The challenge is limited to the “four corners” of the pleading (which includes exhibits attached and incorporated therein) or from matters outside the pleading which are judicially noticeable under Evidence Code §§ 451 or 452. Since it plays such a large role in this demurrer, it is important to appreciate the reach, and the limits, of judicial notice on demurrer.

  • Hearing

    Dec 21, 2020

ANDREW K. CHUNG, AN INDIVIDUAL, AS TRUSTEE OF THE A. CHUNG FAMILY TRUST VS AWP ENERGY, 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

    Dec 21, 2020

JACOBS VS AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.

AHM filed its Answer on 9/17/19, which did not challenge the failure to join Alltizer. AHM did not demurrer to the Complaint based on a failure to join Alltizer. The Retail Installment Sale Contract (RISC) is attached to Mr. Dowling’s declaration, and indicates Alltizer is the buyer, and Plaintiff is the co- buyer. (Dec.Dowling ¶5, Ex. “A” - ex. “2”.) Although Mr.

  • Hearing

    Dec 21, 2020

ANDREW K. CHUNG, AN INDIVIDUAL, AS TRUSTEE OF THE A. CHUNG FAMILY TRUST VS AWP ENERGY, 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

    Dec 21, 2020

STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND VS. RICARDO LARA IN HIS CAPACITY AS INSURANCE COMMISSIONER OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

On February 6, 2019, over a month prior to the expiration of the deadline to file a writ petition to challenge the A-Brite Decision, SCIF and the Commissioner entered into a settlement agreement. (Settlement Agreement). (FAP, ¶8, Exh. B.) In the Settlement Agreement, SCIF agreed not to pursue a writ petition to challenge the A-Brite Decision. The Commissioner then issued an order rescinding the “precedential” designation from the A-Brite Decision. (FAP, ¶57.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 18, 2020

STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND VS. RICARDO LARA IN HIS CAPACITY AS INSURANCE COMMISSIONER OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

On February 6, 2019, over a month prior to the expiration of the deadline to file a writ petition to challenge the A-Brite Decision, SCIF and the Commissioner entered into a settlement agreement. (Settlement Agreement). (FAP, UB, Exh. B.) In the Settlement Agreement, SCIF agreed not to pursue a writ petition to challenge the A-Brite Decision. The Commissioner then issued an order rescinding the "precedential" designation from the A-Brite Decision. (FAP, 1157.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 18, 2020

RYAN SAMUEL VITALI, M.D. VS. MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA

This is not a challenge to the penalty imposed pursuant to the stipulated settlement/Accusation. Petitioner instead contends that Respondent’s action of displaying what he contends to be private information to the public is a violation of his rights, and there is no evidence before the Court that this is an issue that was covered by the stipulated settlement. On the fact of the petition, Government Code section 11523 does not apply to Petitioner’s claims. B.

  • Hearing

    Dec 18, 2020

RYAN SAMUEL VITALI, M.D. VS. MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA

This is not a challenge to the penalty imposed pursuant to the stipulated settlement/Accusation. Petitioner instead contends that Respondent's action of displaying what he contends to be private information to the public is a violation of his rights, and there is no evidence before the Court that this is an issue that was covered by the stipulated settlement. On the fact of the petition, Govemment Code section 11523 does not apply to Petitioner's claims. B.

  • Hearing

    Dec 18, 2020

KIM FUNDING LLC VS CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY [E-FILE]

Chicago Title raises a legal challenge to this cause of action pled in the Kim Funding Amended Complaint and the Fenley and Yu complaints. Relying on the interpretation of Penal Code § 496(c) in Siry Investment, L.P. v. Farkhondehpour (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 1098, 1135 [259 Cal.Rptr.3d 466, Chicago Title argues that Penal Code § 496(c) does not apply to instances in which the money is alleged taken by "fraud, misrepresentation, conversion, or some other type of theft that does not involve 'stolen' property."

  • Hearing

    Dec 18, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ALJAY DAVIS VS WESTLAKE SERVICES, LLC

Applied Underwriters, Inc. (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1096, 1109 [“California courts have recognized that a court is the appropriate entity to resolve challenges to a delegation clause nested in an arbitration clause when a specific contract challenge is made to the delegation clause.” (bold emphasis added)].) Here, however, Plaintiff does not challenge only the delegation clause as unconscionable; rather, he challenges the entire 2014 agreement as unconscionable.

  • Hearing

    Dec 18, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

CITY OF DUARTE VS LEVON H. BARDAKJIAN, ET AL

Motion to Challenge Lien Priority Determination and to Confirm Senior Priority of its Lien filed on behalf of Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. is CONTINUED to December 18, 2020, for hearing on a determination concerning the equities with respect to the matter.

  • Hearing

    Dec 18, 2020

JEONG V. LEE, ET AL.

The challenge is limited to the “four corners” of the pleading (which includes exhibits attached and incorporated therein) or from matters outside the pleading which are judicially noticeable under Evidence Code sections 451 or 452.

  • Hearing

    Dec 18, 2020

MICHAEL KAISER, ET AL. VS ROBERT DAVIS, 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

    Dec 18, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

KIM FUNDING LLC VS CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY [E-FILE]

Chicago Title raises a legal challenge to this cause of action pled in the Kim Funding Amended Complaint and the Fenley and Yu complaints. Relying on the interpretation of Penal Code § 496(c) in Siry Investment, L.P. v. Farkhondehpour (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 1098, 1135 [259 Cal.Rptr.3d 466, Chicago Title argues that Penal Code § 496(c) does not apply to instances in which the money is alleged taken by "fraud, misrepresentation, conversion, or some other type of theft that does not involve 'stolen' property."

  • Hearing

    Dec 18, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

EGAN BADART VS STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

The court requests Respondent address its position Petitioner may proceed with his challenge to civil penalties. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, the demurrer is sustained with 10 days leave to amend as to paragraph 40, subparts (a) and (b) only. The demurrer is overruled as to paragraph 40, subpart (f). The demurrer is sustained without leave to amend as to paragraph 40, subdivisions (b), (c), (d) and (e). The motion to waive bond is denied.

  • Hearing

    Dec 18, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

MEKHITARIST FATHERS OF VIENNA VS ARSINE SHIRVANIAN

The parties are reminded of their obligations under CCP § 430.41 (a) in connection with any further challenge to the amended pleading (“If an amended complaint, cross-complaint, or answer is filed, the responding party shall meet and confer again with the party who filed the amended pleading before filing a demurrer to the amended pleading.”).

  • Hearing

    Dec 18, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

LAKESHORE INVESTMENT LLC., A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS NOW SOLUTIONS INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.

Trial is not set to begin until August 2021, and the proposed Cross-Defendants have sufficient time to propound discovery and challenge the proposed Cross-Complaint by demurrer, motion for judgment on the pleadings, or other applicable procedures. Additionally, the pandemic has caused a significant buildup of cases set for trial in 2021, and the court currently cannot assure the parties their trial will commence as scheduled. As a result, the trial may be continued again.

  • Hearing

    Dec 18, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

KIM FUNDING LLC VS CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY [E-FILE]

Chicago Title raises a legal challenge to this cause of action pled in the Kim Funding Amended Complaint and the Fenley and Yu complaints. Relying on the interpretation of Penal Code § 496(c) in Siry Investment, L.P. v. Farkhondehpour (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 1098, 1135 [259 Cal.Rptr.3d 466, Chicago Title argues that Penal Code § 496(c) does not apply to instances in which the money is alleged taken by "fraud, misrepresentation, conversion, or some other type of theft that does not involve 'stolen' property."

  • Hearing

    Dec 18, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

RURAL COMMUNITIES UNITED V. COUNTY OF EL DORADO

(a)(4)), including ensuring compliance with a peremptory writ of mandate. (Carmel–by–the–Sea, supra, 137 Cal.App.3d at p. 971, 187 Cal.Rptr. 379; County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 205, 139 Cal.Rptr. 396.) ¶ A peremptory writ of mandate in a CEQA proceeding should order the agency to file a return by a date certain informing the court of the agency's actions in compliance with the writ. (Endangered Habitats League, Inc. v.

  • Hearing

    Dec 18, 2020

KIM FUNDING LLC VS CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY [E-FILE]

Chicago Title raises a legal challenge to this cause of action pled in the Kim Funding Amended Complaint and the Fenley and Yu complaints. Relying on the interpretation of Penal Code § 496(c) in Siry Investment, L.P. v. Farkhondehpour (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 1098, 1135 [259 Cal.Rptr.3d 466, Chicago Title argues that Penal Code § 496(c) does not apply to instances in which the money is alleged taken by "fraud, misrepresentation, conversion, or some other type of theft that does not involve 'stolen' property."

  • Hearing

    Dec 18, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

KIM FUNDING LLC VS CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY [E-FILE]

Chicago Title raises a legal challenge to this cause of action pled in the Kim Funding Amended Complaint and the Fenley and Yu complaints. Relying on the interpretation of Penal Code § 496(c) in Siry Investment, L.P. v. Farkhondehpour (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 1098, 1135 [259 Cal.Rptr.3d 466, Chicago Title argues that Penal Code § 496(c) does not apply to instances in which the money is alleged taken by "fraud, misrepresentation, conversion, or some other type of theft that does not involve 'stolen' property."

  • Hearing

    Dec 18, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  « first    1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... 400     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.