What is a Peremptory Challenge (CCP 170.6)?

Useful Rulings on Peremptory Challenge - CCP 170.6

Recent Rulings on Peremptory Challenge - CCP 170.6

226-250 of 10000 results

521 RAMSEY VS WAFICK FOUAD

Errors of law are not proper grounds to challenge an arbitrator’s award. Plaintiff is asserting that the arbitrator made a mistake of law or fact by finding that Amal Zaky was a party to the purchase and sale agreement; not that he exceeded his authority. This is not a proper grounds to modify or correct the arbitration award. With respect to Defendants refusal to mediate, the arbitrator found that there had been no mediation offer properly made to Wafick Zaky or Amal Y.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

JANE CUBICCIOTTI VS DRAGAN CONSTRUCTION, INC.

To the extent Defendant maintains the allegations are improper, it can challenge the pleadings by motion. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion is procedurally deficient and cannot be granted at this time. Specifically, the declaration submitted in support of the motion does not comply with CRC 3.1324 and the proposed FAC attached as Exhibit 1 to the motion appears to be incomplete since it does not include the fourth cause of action Plaintiff discusses in her motion.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

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

TIMED OUT LLC VS PRISMA ENTERTAINMENT LLC

Courts have permitted third parties to intervene and challenge judgments for just such reasons. (See Villaruel v. Arreola (1977) 66 Cal.App.3d 309, 318 [“The proceeding may be taken by a motion in the action in which the judgment was entered, or by an independent action in equity.”].)

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

DISTRICT SQUARE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, A MUNICIPAL ENTITY

District Square contends that its declaratory relief claim does not challenge the APC’s actions, but rather seeks an adjudication of its rights in light of the APC’s actions, including declarations that (1) the deadlines for the City to act under the LAMC have expired and the APC appeals are deemed denied under LAMC sections 11.5.7.C.6.c-d and 16.05.H.4, and City Charter section 245; and (2) the City acted in bad faith in denying the Project.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

YI HAN VS QINGYUN JIANG

On May 21, 2020, this case was reassigned to Department 34 based on a preemptory challenge and all hearings were advanced to that date, vacated, and was to be rescheduled in the newly assigned department. On August 18, 2020, Specially-Appearing Defendant Qingyun Jiang filed the instant motion to quash service of summons and dismiss the case for lack of personal jurisdiction under the Hague Convention. ANALYSIS: I. Motions to Quash Service of Summons A.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

INLAND BUILDERS VS CENTRO MEDICO

Centro Medico does not challenge these elements. 3rd Cause of Action: A “common count” essentially pleads indebtedness by the defendant to plaintiff for a specific reason, i.e. “goods sold and delivered”, “money had and received.” (Philpott v. Superior Court (1934) 1 Cal.2d 512, 518.) There are two types of common counts: 1) for fixed amounts of debt; and, 2) for the reasonable value of services or materials.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

DAVIS VS. CENLAR CAPITAL CORPORATION

Based on the above, the Demurrer is SUSTAINED in its entirety; however, leave to amend is granted, as to the Second through Fourth Causes of Action, as this is the first pleading challenge. Motion to Strike Given the accompanying ruling sustaining the Demurrer in its entirety, the Motion to Strike brought by Defendant Cenlar FSB is MOOT.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

FULTON VS THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES

Petitioner does not challenge the first two findings, conceding that the weight of the evidence supports the conclusion that the arresting officer had reasonable cause to believe petitioner had been driving in violation of Veh.C. §23152, and that petitioner was lawfully arrested without a warrant.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

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

MARGARET HALEY , ET AL. VS PBOOS EXPRESS, LLC , 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 The Court finds the filing of the SAC has rendered the motion to strike portions of the FAC as moot. CONCLUSION The motion to strike is DENIED as MOOT.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

SEO VS. PARK

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. 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 of what plaintiff is complaining, and what remedies are being sought.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES VS., ROBY, JERRY A

The instant motion is the incorrect procedural mechanism by which to challenge Plaintiff’s claim for damages, as it is not directed at the sufficiency of one or more causes of action. (Code Civ. Proc. §438(c)(2)(A).)

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

NOLL V. SANTA ROSA CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL

In Valley View Health Care, Inc., the court examined a challenge to the statutes at issue here, finding that section 1430(b) “effectively precludes arbitration of Patient’s Bill of Rights claims” in that it “prohibits outright arbitration of a particular claim, and disproportionately impacts arbitration.” (Valley View Health Care, Inc., supra, 992 F.Supp.2d at 1041.) Citing AT&T Mobility LLC v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • Judge

    Jennifer V

  • County

    Sonoma County, CA

MUNOZ VS PL HOTEL GROUP LLC

The clerk is further ordered to interlineate the $615.40 in costs sought in the moving defendants' memorandum of costs (ROA 484), because no motion to tax has been filed and the deadline to challenge a cost bill has expired. See CRC 3.1700(b)(1), 8.278(c)(2). Plaintiffs are jointly and severally responsible for these awards.

  • Hearing

    Sep 23, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

LEGEND ADVANCE FUNDING II LLC VS THE CALIFORNIA CHURRASCARIA

Kim does not challenge the sufficiency of service on any grounds other than that he no longer owns or has any relationship to Churrascaria, and the court, therefore, will not consider whether the other requirements for service under section 415.20 were met. Finally, Kim argues the court cannot exercise jurisdiction over Kim on behalf of Churrascaria because he no longer owns Defendant Churrascaria. Mot. at 7. The court, however, is not exercising jurisdiction over Kim. Kim is not a party to this action.

  • Hearing

    Sep 23, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

CHRISTOPHER ISLER V. TIM GILL

Indeed, Defendants raise no specific challenge to this.

  • Hearing

    Sep 23, 2020

MUNOZ VS PL HOTEL GROUP LLC

The clerk is further ordered to interlineate the $615.40 in costs sought in the moving defendants' memorandum of costs (ROA 484), because no motion to tax has been filed and the deadline to challenge a cost bill has expired. See CRC 3.1700(b)(1), 8.278(c)(2). Plaintiffs are jointly and severally responsible for these awards.

  • Hearing

    Sep 23, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

AMBRIZ VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY

Defendant seeks $28,956.26 in court reporter fees, or which Plaintiffs challenge $17,603.26, arguing that trial transcripts are not recoverable. As pointed out by Plaintiffs, transcripts of court proceeding are not recoverable unless ordered by the court. Defendant failed to show the trial transcripts were ordered by the court. GRANT in the amount of $17,603.26. F.

  • Hearing

    Sep 23, 2020

CHRISTOPHER ISLER V. TIM GILL

Indeed, Defendants raise no specific challenge to this.

  • Hearing

    Sep 23, 2020

ME'LANG HARRIS VS DAVID CHEN

In the interest of justice and judicial efficiency, the court will allow Plaintiff to file the SAC, and any challenge to the pleadings will be addressed in one motion. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to immediately file and serve her SAC. Defendant Chen’s demurrer and motion strike are MOOT based on the court’s grant of leave to amend.

  • Hearing

    Sep 23, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

DEMARCO VS KOLL CUSTOM HOMES

The moving party’s challenge that Civ. Code section 3146 (which is now actually section 8461) mandates expungement if not recorded within 20 days. However, Koll persuasively argues that recording the lis pendens after the 20-day period is a curable procedural defect, which has since been cured by the recording of the lis pendens on 6/15/20. The request to expunge the lis pendens is therefore denied.

  • Hearing

    Sep 23, 2020

WILLIAM TUTTON, ET AL. VS SUSAN K BALMFORTH

Legal Standard Demurrer 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 (i.e., no “speaking demurrers”). A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 23, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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

LAW OFFICE OF CARLOS R. PEREZ, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION VS WHITTIER UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT

Specifically, Petitioner seeks “a peremptory writ of mandate directing Respondent . . . to pay $30,000 in attorney’s fees and costs to [Petitioner] which were necessarily and reasonably incurred in bring about [Respondent’s] compliance, after years of resistance, with the [California Voting Rights Act].” (Pet., Prayer ¶ 1.)[1] Respondent opposes the Petition.

  • Hearing

    Sep 23, 2020

  « 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.