What is a Peremptory Challenge (CCP 170.6)?

Useful Rulings on Peremptory Challenge - CCP 170.6

Recent Rulings on Peremptory Challenge - CCP 170.6

76-100 of 10000 results

ALEX KHATCHATURIAN VS CITY OF GLENDALE

First, Respondent contends any challenge to the assessment district must have been brought within 30 days of July 31, 2018. As Petitioner filed his challenge on December 18, 2019, the Petition is time barred. Second, Respondent contends Petitioner does not have standing to prosecute the Petition. Petitioner does not own real property within the district. Instead, Petitioner alleges he is a beneficiary of a trust with 100 percent ownership interest in property within the assessment district.

  • Hearing

    Oct 09, 2020

SALINAS VS. GUTIERREZ

A demurrer, however, does not challenge the truth of the factual allegations in the pleading. The FAC does not allege facts supporting a violation of Civil Code sections 1572 [fraud in the inducement] and 1567 [apparent consent to enter into a contract]. Plaintiffs have alleged facts that support violations of Civil Code sections 1714, 1941, 1942.4, 1942.5 and California Health and Safety Code section 17920. (FAC, ¶¶ 1-4, 6, 9-12, 19, 23-27, 30-39, 41.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 09, 2020

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

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. 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 09, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MARIE MCGINNIS VS RICHARD GABRIEL, ET AL.

McGinnis v Gabriel Motions to Challenge Good Faith Settlement Calendar: Case No.: 19STCV24948 Hearing Date: October 02, 2020 Action Filed: July 17, 2019 Trial Date: January 04, 2021 Challenge Good Faith Settlement (Broker Defendants) MP: Defendants Teresa Dang; Trademark Investors d.b.a.

  • Hearing

    Oct 09, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

QUEZADA VS RIVER SPRINGS CHARTER SCHOOL

All the causes of action at issue challenge conduct that occurred during litigation, specifically the filing of allegedly frivolous claims. This conduct falls within C.C.P. § 425.16(e)(2); Rusheen v. Cohen (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1048, 1056. Plaintiffs argue that the anti-SLAPP statute cannot be relied on by Thurmond because she was not asserting her own rights, but the rights of her client.

  • Hearing

    Oct 09, 2020

ANI KEMKEMIAN ET AL VS JOHN DOE ET AL

However, services incurred in opposing defendant Molina’s demurrer, for example, do not arise from common issues as that demurrer did not challenge the sufficiency of Plaintiff’s claims as to Troud’s estate. See Brown Decl. Ex. B at 5. Had the court sustained Molina’s demurrer, it would have had no effect on the validity of Plaintiffs’ claims against Troud’s estate. Consequently, these fees are not recoverable.

  • Hearing

    Oct 09, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

FRANK ALVAREZ VS HOME DEPOT U.S.A, INC. ET AL.

Thus, to state a defamation claim that survives a First Amendment challenge, plaintiff must present evidence of a statement of fact that is provably false.’ “ Gilbert v. Sykes (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 13, 27. The defamation cause of action stems from Home Depot’s stated decision that Plaintiff inappropriately touched someone’s ear and/or that he was an unproductive employee. Complaint, para 184.

  • Hearing

    Oct 09, 2020

EMIGDIO GARCIA-SOLIS, AN INDIVIDUAL VS DAPENG ZHANG, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

ORDER Defendant Dapeng Zhang's Motion to Challenge the Good Faith of a Settlement Agreement came on regularly for hearing on October 09, 2020, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows: THE MOTION IS DENIED. DATE: _______________ _______________________________ JUDGE

  • Hearing

    Oct 09, 2020

CALLAHAN VS. AMI ADINI ASSOCIATES INC

Defendants were not able to challenge many of the specific entries due to the numerous redactions. The court infers there would be duplication of effort given this case extended for a long time, including two different trial segments. Defendant have raised sufficient examples to show the time spent was not reasonable on given tasks. The court denies plaintiff's request for a multiplier.

  • Hearing

    Oct 09, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

AZZOPARDI VS DEUTSCHE BANK

As a consequence, Plaintiff lacks standing to challenge alleged defects in assignment. (See Saterbak v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 808, 815 [plaintiff lacked standing to challenge alleged defects in assignment; an unauthorized act by the trustee is not void but merely voidable by the beneficiary]; see also Yvanova v. New Century Mortgage Corp. (2016) 62 Cal.4th 919, 942 [recognizes borrower standing only where the defect in the assignment is void, rather than voidable].)

  • Hearing

    Oct 08, 2020

WATER RATE CASES (CHINITZ V CITY OF SANTA CRUZ; KESSNER V CITY OF SANTA CLARA;

However, the plaintiffs in the thre actions challenge different elements of the Studies, with the Kessner plaintiffs challenging th part that determines the appropriate total cost of service, while the Chinitz and Campan plaintiffs challenge the part that deals with tiered rates and the allocation of the cost of servic within each customer class. The fact that the same manual was used to prepare the Studies doe not create a predominant issue of either fact or law.

  • Hearing

    Oct 08, 2020

GLORIA JEAN SHELTON TRUSTEE OF THE SHELTON LIVING TRUST DATED MARCH 2 2018 VS SEASCAPE CHATEAU CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION

This would include the ability to challenge procedural irregularities rendering the board's action unreasonable or arbitrary. Also, a lien imposed by the Association would not necessarily impede Plaintiff's ability to sell her unit. Instead, the lien would presumably be satisfied with Plaintiff's proceeds from the sale. Also, Plaintiff's legal remedy is not inadequate, and pecuniary compensation could afford adequate relief.

  • Hearing

    Oct 08, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

ADMIR AKSALIC VS NOBU JON TAKAHASHI, ET AL.

Defendant Alloway may challenge whether or not he was properly joined as a Doe Defendant by way of an appropriate motion.

  • Hearing

    Oct 08, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

STAHL VS CROSS

Cross-Defendants do not challenge this cause of action based on the alleged breach of paragraphs 2.6 and 4.2(h) of the Operating Agreement. "[A] general demurrer does not lie as to a portion of a cause of action, and if any part of a cause of action is properly pleaded, the demurrer will be overruled." Fire Insurance Exchange v. Superior Court (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 446, 452 citing Campbell v. Genshlea (1919) 180 Cal. 213, 217.

  • Hearing

    Oct 08, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

DAVID SHETLAND VS CITY OF LONG BEACH,

For the reasons above stated let a peremptory writ of mandate issue directing the trial court to set aside its ordered granting of relief. (City of Fresno v. Superior Court (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 25, 31-35 [bold emphasis added].) The alleged "mistake" under section 946.6, subdivision (c)(1) was Roth's error in determining when the spoliation claim accrued.

  • Hearing

    Oct 08, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

STAHL VS CROSS

Cross-Defendants do not challenge this cause of action based on the alleged breach of paragraphs 2.6 and 4.2(h) of the Operating Agreement. "[A] general demurrer does not lie as to a portion of a cause of action, and if any part of a cause of action is properly pleaded, the demurrer will be overruled." Fire Insurance Exchange v. Superior Court (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 446, 452 citing Campbell v. Genshlea (1919) 180 Cal. 213, 217.

  • Hearing

    Oct 08, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

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 Defendants challenge Plaintiff’s claims based on what she 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

    Oct 08, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

TROY BUCKLEY VS BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY

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. 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 39 Cal.3d 311 (1985).

  • Hearing

    Oct 08, 2020

LAURA ESQUIVEL ET AL VS MENZIES AVIATION USA INC ET AL

Either the nonparty witness who has been subpoenaed or any party to the action may challenge the deposition subpoena. Weil & Brown, Civ. Proc. Before Trial, ¶ 8:597. Under CCP §2025.420, “(a) Before, during, or after a deposition, any party, any deponent, or any other affected natural person or organization may promptly move for a protective order. The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.

  • Hearing

    Oct 08, 2020

MOORE VS CALPINE CORPORATION

Because plaintiff has not proposed or otherwise shown how she could amend the pleading without contradicting the facts as pled, the motion as to this cause of action is granted without leave to amend. 3rd Cause of Action - Sexual Harassment Defendants challenge plaintiff's third cause of action on grounds she fails to allege facts in support of a quid pro quo claim, and such claims are time-barred, and that plaintiff fails to plead a hostile work environment claim.

  • Hearing

    Oct 08, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

DEVIN WEISBERG VS JAURIGUE LAW GROUP, ET AL.

The California Supreme Court has held that “[w]hile an anti-SLAPP motion may challenge any claim for relief founded on allegations of protected activity, it does not reach claims based on unprotected activity.” (Id. at 382.) Accordingly, an anti-SLAPP Motion can only be granted on the portion of the Cause of Action that is based on protected activity. It cannot be granted to the extent the Cause of Action is based on unprotected activity (Id.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 08, 2020

CREDITCARD DATA SERVICES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS HANK CHO

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. 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 08, 2020

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MARIO RODRIGUEZ VS LISA STANISLAWSKI

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. (Donabedian, 116 Cal.App.4th at 994.) 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

    Oct 08, 2020

KATY M SETOODEH VS SAINT JOHNS MULTISPECIALTY MEDICAL GROUP, INC., DBA DOCTORS OF ST JOHNS MEDICAL GROUP, A CALIFORNIA 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 (Berkley).)

  • Hearing

    Oct 08, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

MOORE VS CALPINE CORPORATION

Because plaintiff has not proposed or otherwise shown how she could amend the pleading without contradicting the facts as pled, the motion as to this cause of action is granted without leave to amend. 3rd Cause of Action - Sexual Harassment Defendants challenge plaintiff's third cause of action on grounds she fails to allege facts in support of a quid pro quo claim, and such claims are time-barred, and that plaintiff fails to plead a hostile work environment claim.

  • Hearing

    Oct 08, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  « 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.