What is a Peremptory Challenge (CCP 170.6)?

Useful Rulings on Peremptory Challenge - CCP 170.6

Recent Rulings on Peremptory Challenge - CCP 170.6

51-75 of 10000 results

HUGO ENRIQUE RIVERA VS. ANABEL GALLAGHER

As such, this challenge has been waived by Rivera. "An objection that there is a variance between the allegations of the pleadings and the proof offered at trial must be presented to the trial court or it is waived. [Citation.] An objection that the findings are not within the issues made by the pleadings will not be considered on appeal where the case was tried without objection to the sufficiency of the pleadings to raise such issues and the findings are justified by the evidence. [Citation.]"

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

OFELIA OLIVAREZ VS TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION, A NEVADA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Plaintiff agrees that the Coast arbitration agreement contains her signature, and she does not challenge its enforceability. (Opposition at p. 2; Olivarez Decl. ¶ 3.) Petitioner states, “If the Court determines that the [Coast arbitration agreement] is still effective, she will agree to stay this action and submit to arbitration under [the Coast arbitration agreement].” (Opposition at p. 2.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

GRACE ALBA, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM, SYLVIA ALBA VS SPARKLETTS, INC., A CORPORATION, ET AL.

Within three (3) calendar days after such a challenge has been made, the Designating Party shall substantiate the basis for such designation in writing to the other Party. The Parties shall first attempt to resolve such challenge in good faith on an informal basis.

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

LIMPIN VS. SAN DIEGO HOUSING COMMISSION

Even excluding the time period from this court's initial denial of SDHC's peremptory challenge 96/25/20 [ROA 35]) to the time the Court of Appeal dismissed SDHC's writ (7/15/20 [ROA 42]), the 5-years has still run. Plaintiff's arguments for tolling are inapplicable.

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

FIX THE CITY INC., A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT CORPORATION VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

Analysis Respondents contend that the petition, filed in October 2018, does not challenge City’s adoption of the Expo Plan in November 2019, and that any such challenge would be time barred and would not relate back to the filing of the petition. (Mot. 13-16.) The Petition Does Not Challenge City’s Adoption of the Expo Plan Respondents contend that the petition, filed in October 2018, does not challenge City’s adoption of the Expo Plan in November 2019. (Mot. 14.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

ALL OF US OR NONE-L A CHAPTER ET AL VS L A UNIFIED SCHOOL DI

But the FAC does not challenge the constitutionality of Education Codes §§ 44830.1 or 45122, as the District suggests. Plaintiffs rather challenge LAUSD’s policy of using expunged misdemeanor convictions as a basis for denying employment eligibility. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED as to the second cause of action. PENAL CODE § 11105, SUBD.

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2020

LOEFFLER V. ASSOCIATION LIEN SERVICES, INC.

Thus, the question posed is whether the HOA is seeking fees regarding a successful defense of a righteous challenge to a vote, as opposed to something else. The issue is not as clear as one might hope because a voting challenge can only be brought by a member, which is defined as “an owner of a separate interest” in the HOA. Civil Code §4160. Plaintiff made the challenge while denying she was a member of the HOA.

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2020

KEVIN MODA VS UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC ET AL

The court in North Beverly Park addressed a challenge to a judicial officer after judgment was entered, which is not the case here. (North Beverly Park, supra at 767 (“the trial judge's failure to answer or strike the Bisnos' statement of disqualification, which was filed and served after final judgment, does not constitute consent to retroactive disqualification, and does not require that the allegations of the statement of disqualification be deemed true.”).)

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

ROBERT GABRIEL VS QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORPORATION, ET AL.

If any defendant intends to file a pleading challenge to the amended complaint, defendant must lodge (NOT E-FILE) directly in Dept. 73 the red-line copy of the amended complaint with its pleading (demurrer/motion to strike/motion for judgment on the pleadings). Meet and confer requirement (effective through 1/1/21): The court orders the parties to meet and confer before the amended complaint or pleading challenge to the amended complaint is filed.

  • Hearing

    Oct 14, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

BONILLA V MARIN COUNTY

The complain fails to state a cause of action, as the complaint barred by failure to comply with Tort Claim Act, Plaintiff cannot challenge Marin’s vexatious litigant order in this court, and the County o Marin is not a proper party; the complaint is uncertain; and these defects cannot be cured b amendment. The Clerk is directed to dismiss the action.

  • Hearing

    Oct 14, 2020

SUN PACIFIC PRODUCTS, INC. V. RIVERBEND FOOD, LLC, ET AL.

A motion to strike is the proper procedure to challenge an improper request for relief, or improper remedy, within a complaint. (Grieves v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 166-167.) Mere legal conclusions of oppression, fraud or malice are insufficient (and hence improper) and therefore may be stricken. However, if looking to the complaint as a whole, sufficient facts are alleged to support the allegations, then a motion to strike should be denied. (Perkins v.

  • Hearing

    Oct 14, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

EMPEROR ENTERTAINMENT, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL. VS DEFYNE HOLDINGS, LLC., A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

Defyne does not challenge this cause of action because it was purportedly removed from the FAC. However, Plaintiffs plead that Defendants received $55,000 from Plaintiffs by defrauding them and breaching the loan agreement. Thus, Defendants will be unjustly enriched if not required to disgorge these funds secured through fraud. Plaintiffs have sufficiently pled restitution and unjust enrichment against Defyne. Demurrer to this claim is overruled. // H.

  • Hearing

    Oct 14, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

MJ GLOBAL ENTERRPISE, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL. VS SUSAN HEO, 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 14, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

SANTA BARBARA COALITION FOR RESPONSIBLE CANNABIS, INC. V. COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA, ET AL.

(AR03434, AR03554) Coalition does not challenge the Board’s actions with regard to the water and biological resources mitigation measures, only their actions regarding the mitigation measures for visual resources (MM-VIS-1, MM-VIS-2, and MM-VIS-3). Coalition contends that the Board’s rejection and/or revision of these mitigation measures was not supported by substantial evidence.

  • Hearing

    Oct 13, 2020

HODGES V. COSTA MESA SANITARY DISTRICT

Defendants will have the opportunity to challenge the viability of the proposed additional allegations by filing a demurrer, motion to strike, motion for judgment on the pleadings or other appropriate proceedings. Kittredge Sports Co., supra, 213 Cal.App.3d at 1048.

  • Hearing

    Oct 13, 2020

HODGES V. COSTA MESA SANITARY DISTRICT

Defendants will have the opportunity to challenge the viability of the proposed additional allegations by filing a demurrer, motion to strike, motion for judgment on the pleadings or other appropriate proceedings. Kittredge Sports Co., supra, 213 Cal.App.3d at 1048.

  • Hearing

    Oct 13, 2020

NATURES PRODUCE VS DEDEAUX PROPERTIES LLC ET AL

Demurrer 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

    Oct 13, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ROBERT T. WALSTON, ET AL. VS PSYOP PRODUCTIONS, LLC., A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

In their brief, Defendants only challenge one paragraph of the Walston declaration, which states: “Defendants’ performance under the Agreement was not prevented, nor was the Agreement illegal, impractical, impossible, or based upon any mistake.” (See Oppo. 7.) Even if the court were to disregard this statement, which appears to be a legal conclusion, Plaintiff submits sufficient evidence of all elements of its contract claim, including Plaintiff’s performance and Defendants’ breach.

  • Hearing

    Oct 13, 2020

LORENZO CACCIALANZA VS INTERNATIONAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES INC. DBA IDEG

If any opposing party intends to file a pleading challenge to the amended pleading, that party’s responsive pleading must be filed and served within 15 days after service of the amended pleading and, further, that party must lodge directly in Dept. 73 the red-line copy of the amended pleading with its demurrer or other pleading challenging the amended pleading.

  • Hearing

    Oct 13, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

DORIS BERGMAN VS FRANK ZIMMERMANN ET AL.

That way, if the demurrer or other challenge is upheld, the appellate court will know on what ground the amendment was rejected. (California Cas. Gen. Ins. Co. v. Sup. Ct ((1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 281, (disapproved on other grounds in Kransco v. American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 390, 407).) This Court chooses to follow the better practice, and will not rule on the merits of the proposed amended pleading at this stage in the proceedings—the motion to amend.

  • Hearing

    Oct 13, 2020

  • Judge Jayne Lee
  • County

    San Joaquin County, CA

MUNOZ VS. KIA MOTORS AMERICA INC.

Upon challenge by the defendant, the plaintiff must establish that both requirements for jurisdiction are met. When a defendant challenges service, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the existence of jurisdiction by proving, inter alia, the facts requisite to an effective service. (Summers v. McClanahan (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 403, 413; Lebel v.

  • Hearing

    Oct 12, 2020

GREGORY TCHEJEYAN VS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS

This subdivision provides that: "An action or proceeding challenging an action taken pursuant to Section 65863.6, or Chapter 4.2 (commencing with Section 65913), or to challenge the adequacy of an ordinance adopted pursuant to Section 65915 shall be served within 180 days after the accrual of the cause of action as provided in this subdivision."

  • Hearing

    Oct 09, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

RIEDMAN VS. GIOVANNA ENTERPRISES, LLC

In this case, Plaintiff is the prevailing party in the appeal too, having successfully defended the judgment against the challenge of the Defendants. There is also a minor sum included here for enforcement efforts. Under CCP §685.040, a judgment creditor is allowed reasonable attorney fees incurred in enforcement of a judgment. The Plaintiff is reminded that future requests should be made by citing to the Enforcement of Judgment Laws. (See Conservatorship of McQueen (2014) 59 Cal.4th 602, 608.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 09, 2020

WILLIE F. MCMULLEN, JR., ET AL. VS ANA WARD, ET AL.

Chronicle Publishing Co. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 855, superseded by statute on other grounds, in response to a challenge on due process grounds to the discovery stay set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, subdivision (g), the Court of Appeal noted that the plaintiff never tried to take advantage of the discovery exception in subdivision (g) and “never sought any discovery in [that] case.” (Id. at p. 867 [emphasis in original].)

  • Hearing

    Oct 09, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

JUDSON ABTS, ET AL. VS RAYMOND LEE

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 09, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

  « 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.