What is a Peremptory Challenge (CCP 170.6)?

Useful Rulings on Peremptory Challenge - CCP 170.6

Recent Rulings on Peremptory Challenge - CCP 170.6

26-50 of 10000 results

MICHAEL KADENACY VS MICHAEL FRAWLEY, 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

    Oct 20, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ROBERT SCOTT SHTOFMAN VS JULIE C LIM ET AL

On October 23, 2019, pursuant to a peremptory challenge, the instant action was transferred to the current department from Department 40. (Minute Order 10/23/19.) On October 23, 2019, the Court of Appeal affirmed the granting of the special motion to strike. On December 23, 2019, the Court of Appeal issued the remittitur. On February 4, 2020, Shtofman filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16.

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

AREA J, LLC ET. AL. VS. HOPE OF THE VALLEY

Cross-Complainants in opposition challenge the argument that the cross-complaint “arises” from a protected activity. The cross-complaint alleges claims in indemnity, rather than the alleged underlying conduct leading to the Asset Purchase Agreement and subsequent notice to the California Attorney General. Section 6.1.1 of the Agreement contains an express indemnification clause.

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

HARI JEWELS, INC. V. SHERYL LOWE DESIGNS LLC, ET AL.

In reply, plaintiff does not challenge that this real property is not subject to attachment. On the evidence presented, the court determines that the real property located at 700 Picacho Lane, Santa Barbara is not subject to attachment and attachment of that property will be prohibited. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 484.090, subd. (c), 487.010, subd. (c)(1), 487.020, subd. (d).)

  • Hearing

    Oct 19, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Discussion Demurrer 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.

  • Hearing

    Oct 19, 2020

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

    Oct 19, 2020

DAVIDSON LISA VS WOODLAND HILLS DELI MARKET, CORP.

Motions to strike in courts of limited jurisdiction, however, may only challenge pleadings on the basis that “the damages or relief sought are not supported by the allegations of the complaint.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 92, subd. (d).) As the request to strike the Answer raised by this Motion does not pertain to whether the damages alleged or relief sought are supported by the allegations, it cannot be raised in this Court. It is black letter law that a corporation cannot represent itself in court.

  • Hearing

    Oct 19, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MONACARO CORPORATION VS NEXTITLE, ET AL.

Discussion Demurrer 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.

  • Hearing

    Oct 19, 2020

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

JAMES LEE, AN INDIVIDUAL VS SELAN LAW FIRM, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, ET AL.

The purpose of a demurrer is to challenge the sufficiency of a pleading “by raising questions of law.” (Postley v. Harvey (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 280, 286.) The court “treat[s] the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law. . .” (Berkley v. Dowds (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 518, 525.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 19, 2020

SHAVONNE HUNTER AS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT FOR GRACE ELAINE TAYLOR-BARNWELL VS YOLANDA BROWN, ET AL.

In other words, these moving defendants lack the required standing at this time to challenge the alleged "standing" of the Plaintiff to prosecute this action. "And isn’t that ironic, don't you think?"[1] Accordingly, Defendants’ motion is taken OFF CALENDAR. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 19, 2020 ___________________________________ Randolph M.

  • Hearing

    Oct 19, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

HWA JA PARK, ET AL. VS SAMHO TOUR, 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

    Oct 19, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

SWANBERG VS JDA LLC

Further, by failing to oppose the motion, plaintiff has failed to preserve for appeal a challenge to the granting of the motion. In re Carrie W., 110 Cal.App.4th 746, 755 (2003); Broden v. Marin Humane Society, 70 Cal.App.4th 1212, 1226-1227, fn. 13 (1999); see also Duarte v. Chino Comm. Hospital, 72 Cal. App. 4th 849, 856 (1999); Badie v. Bank of America, 67 Cal. App. 4th 779, 784-85 (1998).

  • Hearing

    Oct 19, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

BAR BAKERS, LLC VS CREATIVE FLAVOR CONCEPTS, INC.

Any such defect in another party’s pleading has to be raised by an appropriate challenge, there. For these reasons, the demurrer is sustained without leave to amend. Demurrer to 5th Coa for Fraud by Misrepresentation Sustained with leave to amend. This cause of action requires significant attention.

  • Hearing

    Oct 19, 2020

UNIFUND CCR LLC VS KAHN

Further, by failing to oppose the motion, defendant has failed to preserve for appeal a challenge to the granting of the motion. In re Carrie W., 110 Cal.App.4th 746, 755 (2003); Broden v. Marin Humane Society, 70 Cal.App.4th 1212, 1226-1227, fn. 13 (1999); see also Duarte v. Chino Comm. Hospital, 72 Cal. App. 4th 849, 856 (1999); Badie v. Bank of America, 67 Cal. App. 4th 779, 784-85 (1998).

  • Hearing

    Oct 19, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

KRIS KAT, LLC VS. CALIFORNIA GAMBLING CONTROL COMMISSION

Respondents then argue that discovery may be allowed in such a challenge, only upon a showing of relevant evidence that, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been produced in the administrative proceeding. Respondents argue Petitioners have not made such a showing.

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

JEFFREY BOWEN ET AL VS PLAINS ALL AMERICAN PIPELINE LP ET AL

To the extent that any difference exists in the allegations in this matter from Trejo that may materially affect the court’s reasoning, any such difference should be highlighted and argued in the context of any challenge to an amended complaint.

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Here, the motion and Response concede that plaintiff served timely responses to the subject discovery by personal service on March 7, 2020, and that the only challenge to the sufficiency of those responses is the actual content of the responses. [See Papukyan Decl., para. 2, Ex. B; Response, filed 10/5/20, p. 20:8-14]. The motion to compel further responses was accordingly due within 45 days of service, or no later than April 20, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

DREW VS STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (CALTRANS)

From the Court’s review of the papers, Orion does not challenge the other Tech-Bilt factors. Relying on the Anaheim Fire Department’s investigation report, Orion argues the available evidence suggests Caltrans is 100% at fault, or at least far more at fault than the roughly 19% reflected in a $9.3 million settlement of $50 million claims. As explained in the report, Caltrans employee Carlos Gaspar told fire investigators that he threw lit Orion flares into active freeway traffic on the 91.

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

HOVHANNES MARKOSYAN VS NAREK PAPUKYAN, ET AL

Here, the motion and Response concede that plaintiff served timely responses to the subject discovery by personal service on March 7, 2020, and that the only challenge to the sufficiency of those responses is the actual content of the responses. [See Papukyan Decl., para. 2, Ex. B; Response, filed 10/5/20, p. 20:8-14]. The motion to compel further responses was accordingly due within 45 days of service, or no later than April 20, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

PATRICIA WINSTON VS UNIFY FINANCIAL CREDIT UNION, 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

    Oct 16, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

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

The file shows that three motions, one to challenge jurisdiction, one to correct errors, and one to stay the matter, were originally heard on June 28, 2019. The minute order indicates that plaintiff Theresa Williams filed a challenge for cause against the Honorable Ralph C. Hofer along with an application for continuance. On the court’s own motion, the hearing was continued to July 26, 2019. On July 26, 2019, the matters were heard.

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

WRW PROPERTIES, LLC VS JVS DEVELOPMENT LLC

Newmark and Rudy first challenge the amount of the settlement in comparison to the parties’ proportional liability; that is, they claim the settlement is so far “out of the ballpark” as to be obviously unfair.

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

GENE ZILINSKAS, ET AL. VS STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION, ET AL.

DEMURRER 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

    Oct 16, 2020

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

INLAND LEASE & RENTAL, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION VS WICKED EXPRESS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

Given the strong policy of having matters decided on their merits, and the lack of any challenge to defendant’s showing, the motion is granted, and the relief is granted. RULING: [No opposition]. Defendant Wicked Express, Inc.’s UNOPPOSED Motion to Set Aside Default and Default Judgment is GRANTED. The default judgment entered June 23, 2020 is vacated pursuant to CCP § 473(b), based on moving party’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise and/or excusable neglect.

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

FREMERMAN VS. KIM

Although debtor claims he did not get a fair opportunity in Colorado to either challenge the claims or appeal the adverse decision, the evidence provided in support of those contentions is woefully insufficient to permit this Court to find that Colorado lacked fundamental jurisdiction over debtor. There is also no basis to find that the judgment was obtained by extrinsic fraud.

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

  « first    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.