What is a Peremptory Challenge (CCP 170.6)?

Useful Resources for Peremptory Challenge - CCP 170.6

Recent Rulings on Peremptory Challenge - CCP 170.6

76-100 of 10000 results

PARTOW VS CRAMER

The question addressed in that case was whether a taxpayer may challenge assessed real property taxes and penalties in an action for declaratory relief and avoid the limited remedies and procedures provided by California Constitution, Article XIII, section 32.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

MAHER MEMARZADEH VS LOTTIE COHEN 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

    Jan 14, 2021

KRISTI COURTOIS, , AS AN INDIVIDUAL, AND AS BENEFICIARY AND HEIR OF THE ESTATE OF AUSTEENE G. COOPER VS NEWREZ, LLC., ET AL.

FAULTY 2011 ASSIGNMENT — FIRST, THIRD, FOURTH, FIFTH, AND TENTH CAUSES OF ACTION Defendants challenge Plaintiff’s first, third, fourth, fifth, and tenth causes of action (respectively for wrongful foreclosure, fraud, cancellation of instruments, slander of title, and quiet title), which are grounded on what Plaintiff characterizes as a faulty 2011 assignment of the deed of trust from MERS to BNYM based on an alleged prior sale of the debt from Countrywide to third-party CWALT, Inc. (Complaint ¶ 29.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

MARIA CONCEPCION ROSALES IRASAVA VS PHARMAVITE LLC ET AL

Defendant asserts that given the overlapping time between Plaintiff’s claim of events in 2013 and the narrow scope of the subpoena, which only seeks records from 2013, these medical records are highly relevant and necessary in order to analyze, understand, and challenge the full extent of Plaintiff’s claimed damages. Defendant contends that the subpoena is aimed at obtaining Plaintiff’s physical and mental state in the year in which she claims she was sexually harassed and assaulted by Defendant.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

BOERS VS KELLY

Therefore, Defendants have already had an opportunity to respond and challenge the conclusion of this survey –.] DECINE to rule on remaining objections. GRANT the motion as to the first (Public Continuing Nuisance) and fourth (declaratory relief) causes of action.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

JACQUELINE HUTTON VS BOSCO CREDIT ET AL.

Ghidotti argues that this cause of action fails because (1) “California law does not recognize a challenge to the title by an owner of a merely equitable interest in the property”; and (2) Plaintiff failed to state facts to establish the elements of a quiet title cause of action. (Dem. at p.7.). Ghidotti also argues that a borrower may not quiet title against a secured lender without first paying the outstanding debt the deed of trust is based on. (Dem. at pp. 6-7.) This Court agrees with Ghidotti.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Judge Jayne Lee
  • County

    San Joaquin County, CA

SUPERIOR COURT VS. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS ETC

“The essential position advanced in [the developer’s] alternative motions to dismiss and for judgment on the pleadings was that Kaatz's claims were based on a challenge to the validity of the [city’s agreement (land disposition agreement or “LDA”) with the developer for the sale/purchase of the subject property], executed in May 1998.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

DWAYNE ANDERSON VS SHERRI R. CARTER, 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. 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

    Jan 14, 2021

JUAN JOSE LOPEZ VS BET ENTERPRISES INC. , 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 (Berkley).)

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

NIBBLE THIS - EL MONTE, LLC., A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS CITY OF EL MONTE, ET AL.

Although somewhat unclear, Petitioner apparently does not challenge its own score for this part of the application, only challenging LBLC’s higher score. The Guidelines state that, in the phase 3 third-party review, the applications would be given up to 100 points for “Plans, Renderings, Location, and Other Diagrams.”

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

SALER VS RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT

As to the complete and accepted doctrine, Arizona Pipeline’s argument “[t]here can be no question that the Arizona Pipeline’s work…was accepted by the Water Department and the County” (Motion, p. 8.) is outside the pleadings...The opposition is correct that the determination of whether the condition of the roadway was completed and accepted and the alleged defect patent or latent cannot be decided on a challenge to the pleadings.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, A PUBLIC ENTITY VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, A PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.

Code section 21167(c), an action to challenge the certification of Final SEIR or any other agency action under CEQA shall be commenced within 30 days of the filing of the Notice of Determination (“NOD”). Opp. at 8. The 30-day statute of limitations in CEQA is a mandatory deadline and that no extensions of time are applicable. See, e.g., Alliance for the Protection of the Auburn Community Environment v. Placer, (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 25; Nacimiento Regional Water Management Committee v.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

DANIEL FORSTER, ET AL VS. CHARLES E. JANEKE, & DOES 1-10

While his prior demurrer to the FAC may have been sustained, Defendant has to do more to challenge the SAC than simply assert that it does not comply with the Court’s ruling on the first demurrer. Instead, Defendant must demonstrate why he is entitled to judgment in his favor based on the allegations of the SAC, whether by reference to its pleading defects or otherwise. His motion simply does not do so. As a result, Defendant’s challenge to Plaintiffs’ SAC must be rejected. C.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

KAMAL MCHANTAF VS ASHANTI TRAVERS, ET AL.

On September 11, 2020, non-party The People of the State of California, acting by and through the Department of Transportation filed a motion to challenge good faith of settlement. On September 25, 2020, the Court ordered this case related to 20STCV30782 Mchantaf, et al v. State of California, et al. On December 24, 2020, Defendants filed their opposition to the motion. On January 5, 2021, non-party The People of the State of California filed their reply to the motion.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

FREDERICK TUCKER VS LONE OAK FUND, LLC, ET AL.

Discussion As noted above, motions to strike in limited jurisdiction courts may only challenge pleadings on the basis that “the damages or relief sought are not supported by the allegations of the complaint.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 92, subd. (d).) Defendant Lone Oak seeks to strike paragraphs 24 and 25 of the Complaint regarding Defendants’ alleged malicious, oppressive, fraudulent conduct justifying an award of punitive damages. (Mot. to Strike, p. 3:17-22.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

MOULTRIC MARTIN VS DARDEN, INC., ET AL.

Here, Plaintiff does not challenge that if the agreement is enforceable, the claims are within the scope of the arbitration agreement. A. Arbitration Agreement Defendants proved the existence of an arbitration agreement with Plaintiff.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

QUEPONDS VS. ORDWAY CORPORATION

Based on the above, the Demurrer to the Sixth Cause of Action is SUSTAINED; however, as this is the first challenge to the Complaint, leave to amend is granted. Moving Party to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

MICHAEL LEVINE, ET AL. VS MONTALBA ARCHITECTS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

While Plaintiffs argue that the motion to strike as to the unlawful allegations are better suited for a demurrer, Defendant Denver does not challenge the sufficiency of the UCL cause of action. Rather, Denver argues that the inclusion of the unlawful allegations are improper absent a reference to a specific law violated. The Court agrees. Therefore, the motion to strike is GRANTED as items nos. 19- 30 and 32 with leave to amend.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

RODOLFO ROMERO, ET AL. VS KIMCO REALTY CORPORATION, ET AL.

.: 19STCV46118 Hearing Date: January 13, 2021 [Tentative] order RE: motion to challenge good faith settlement BACKGROUND Plaintiffs Rodolfo Romero and Bertha Lina Romero (“Plaintiffs”) filed this action after they were hit by a vehicle driven by Isabella Rose Calhoun (“Calhoun”). Plaintiffs allege that they were eating outside a restaurant owned and operated by Defendants Kimco Realty Corporation and Panda Restaurant Group, Inc.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JOSE MUNOZ ET AL VS SBI INDUSTRIES INC ET AL

Plaintiffs filed a peremptory challenge on July 16, 2020, thereby leading to reassignment to Department 49 on July 22, 2020. RULING: Moot/Off-Calendar Defendant Intelligrated Sytems, LLC move for a protective order on the methods employed for certain depositions of expert witnesses, and to limit the conduct of Plaintiffs’ counsel, Joseph Davis.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

BEATRIZ VALDEZ ET AL VS DOES 1 TO 200

However, Titanium is using an improper motion to challenge the sufficiency of the allegations against it in the SAC. “[A] motion to strike is generally used to reach defects in a pleading which are not subject to demurrer. A motion to strike does not lie to attack a complaint for insufficiency of allegations to justify relief; that is a ground for general demurrer.” (Pierson v. Sharp Memorial Hospital, Inc. (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 340, 342.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

MONROE JACQUES DE ROTHSCHILD VS RICHARD DISISTO, ET AL.

The Motion does not argue that the service address was improper or raise any other challenge to the propriety of service. The papers were left at the mailbox on January 21, 2020 and mailed there on the same date. (Proof of Service, filed 2/7/20, ¶5.) If the party’s failure to respond to the action is the result of inexcusable neglect, relief is not available under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b). (Martin Potts & Associates, Inc. v.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

CJWORLD-LA, ET AL. VS 147-151 W. 25TH ST. LLC, ET AL.

As noted above, 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, supra, 39 Cal 3d at p.318.) However, the “face of the complaint” includes matters shown in exhibits attached to the complaint and incorporated by reference; or in a previous superseded complaint in the same action. (Frantz v. Blackwell (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 91, 94.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

CITY OF PALOS VERDES ESTATES, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ET AL. VS LUCRETIA ZOROTOVICH DUNCAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE UNDER THE LUCRETIA Z. DUNCAN LIVING TRUST DATED MAY 11, 2009, ET AL.

First, the Court notes that moving party moved to challenge the proposed order dated October 26, 2020, rather than the actual order which was dated and entered on November 3, 2020. Plaintiff also noted this error. However, the Court treats this error as de minimis and will treat this as a motion challenging the actual order entered on November 3, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

BAUTISTA VS. WORLDMARK THE CLUB

Jackson (2010) 561 U.S. 63, “a party’s challenge to another provision of the contract, or to the contract as a whole, does not prevent a court from enforcing a specific agreement to arbitrate.” (Id. at 70-71). Based on all of the above, the Motion to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED. Lastly, this action shall be stayed, pending the completion of arbitration. (9 U.S.C. §3 and C.C.P. §1281.4). Moving party to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

  « 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.