What is a Peremptory Challenge (CCP 170.6)?

Useful Rulings on Peremptory Challenge - CCP 170.6

Recent Rulings on Peremptory Challenge - CCP 170.6

9976-10000 of 10000 results

PSC 1601652

Superior Court (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 1561, 1573—“A fair reading of the statute indicates only parties to the underlying litigation may challenge a trial court's determination of the good faith of a settlement.”) The fact that one must be a party to oppose or be affected by a determination of good faith is obvious from the fact that only parties are permitted to engage in the discovery necessary to develop the evidence required to oppose a determination of good faith.

  • Hearing

    Feb 14, 2017

ROD MESSECA VS KRISTEN HUNSBERGER

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.

  • Hearing

    Feb 14, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

PILOT AIR FREIGHT CORP VS CURACAO LTD ET AL

Superior Court (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 365, 384 (“A demurrer is not the appropriate vehicle to challenge a portion of a cause of action demanding an improper remedy.”).) Accordingly, the Court addresses this argument in connection with Pilot’s motion to strike. Pilot’s demurrer is overruled.

  • Hearing

    Feb 14, 2017

INTEGRITY EXCROW INC VS GALLEGOS, JOSE ANTONIO

While a defendant may challenge the sufficiency of the complaint by demurrer, if the allegations are sufficient, the defendants may nevertheless, by denials or affirmative averments in their answer, attack the propriety of the remedy. See Los Angeles v. Amidor (1903) 140 C. 400, 401. But the failure to make a challenge by demurrer, answer or motion is a waiver.

  • Hearing

    Feb 14, 2017

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

  • Judge

    Elaine Lu or Yolanda Orozco

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

BRIAN SMYTH AND BEN HUTCHINSON VS. ANNE KIHAGI

PLAINTIFF BRIAN SMYTH, BEN HUTCHINSON MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS OF CASE(S) CGC-16-553236 WITH CASE CGC-15-546973 (CCP 170.6 to REQ) continued to February 17, 2017. CCP 170.6 to the Honorable Ronald Evans Quidachay on file. = (501/REQ)

  • Hearing

    Feb 10, 2017

MICHAEL HANEY VS. CALIFORNIA STATE CONTROLLER'S OFFICE,

Petitioner seeks a declaratory judgment that the Controller has violated the CPRA, and a peremptory writ of mandate (and/or injunction) ordering the Controller to provide him copies of all documents and information responsive to his request. Respondent Controller has filed a demurrer to the petition and complaint (the “petition”).

  • Hearing

    Feb 10, 2017

JAMILI VS. THE IRVINE COMPANY, LLC

. … [¶ But once the opposing party] challenge[s] the validity of that signature in his [or her] opposition, [the moving party is] then required to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the signature was authentic.” (Espejo v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1047, 1060.) Here, Defendant met its initial burden by simply attaching the arbitration agreement as Exh. A to the Gart Declaration.

  • Hearing

    Feb 10, 2017

JAMILI VS. THE IRVINE COMPANY, LLC

. … [¶ But once the opposing party] challenge[s] the validity of that signature in his [or her] opposition, [the moving party is] then required to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the signature was authentic.” (Espejo v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1047, 1060.) Here, Defendant met its initial burden by simply attaching the arbitration agreement as Exh. A to the Gart Declaration.

  • Hearing

    Feb 10, 2017

TRAN VS RUSSO

Because the allegations in the Complaint related to the receiver’s alleged status and misconduct arising from the Lam case, it would appear that any procedural challenge to the Receiver’s status or conduct should be filed in that case. The court GRANTS Defendants’ request to take judicial notice of the docket in the Lam case, which demonstrates that Plaintiffs have not obtained court approval to sue the receiver.

  • Hearing

    Feb 10, 2017

LEWIS VS MACHINING TIME SAVERS, INC.

Superior Court (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 468, 477 [177 Cal.Rptr.3d 320, 326–27] In considering a demurrer challenge to the sufficiency of a pleading, the court cannot conduct what amounts to an evidentiary hearing to challenge the plaintiff’s claims on the merits, asking that the court draw factual inferences from the discovery materials tending to show that the claims are not sufficient. Such is not a proper use of judicial notice in a demurrer proceeding. (See Williams v.

  • Hearing

    Feb 10, 2017

VENTURA FOOTHILL NEIGHBORS VS. COUNTY OF VENTURA

In a supplemental case management statement filed by petitioner on December 6, 2016, petitioner suggested that the County was intentionally dragging its feet with respect to designing mitigation measures and has "not taken seriously its obligations to comply with CEQA reply to this Court's peremptory writ."

  • Hearing

    Feb 09, 2017

ALYCESUN DALEY VS. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ET AL (DEFTS' CHALLENGE JUDGE GOLDSMITH)

Motion To Strike Defendants Untimely Response To Objections To Recommendations Of Discovery Referee Dated December 6, 2016 SET FOR HEARING ON THURSDAY FEB 9 2017, LINE 5, PLAINTIFF ALYCESUN DALEY Motion To Strike Defendants Untimely Response To Objections To Recommendations Of Discovery Referee Dated December 6, 2016 IS Off calendar. Motion res...

  • Hearing

    Feb 09, 2017

FREEMAN VS PALO ALTO MEDICAL FOUNDATION

The demurrer is overruled because the proper way to challenge the alleged improper use of CCP § 474 is a motion for summary judgment, not a demurrer or a motion to quash service of summons. (See Scherer v. Mark (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 834, 836; Munoz v. Purdy (1979) 91 Cal.App.3d 942, 947.) The court was going to issue the following tentative ruling until it realized Telecare would be objecting to plaintiff’s evidence even though it was submitting evidence of its own.

  • Hearing

    Feb 09, 2017

MEDINA VS. WORLD AUTO SALES

The challenge for the trial courts is to make an award that provides fair compensation to the attorneys involved in the litigation at hand and encourages litigation of claims that in the public interest and merit litigation, without encouraging the unnecessary litigation of claims of little public value. The classic situation justifying an upward adjustment of the lodestar figure was seen in the Serrano cases [Serrano v. Priest, 5 Cal. 3d 584 (1971)(Serrano I), Serrano v.

  • Hearing

    Feb 09, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

MEDINA VS. WORLD AUTO SALES

The challenge for the trial courts is to make an award that provides fair compensation to the attorneys involved in the litigation at hand and encourages litigation of claims that in the public interest and merit litigation, without encouraging the unnecessary litigation of claims of little public value. The classic situation justifying an upward adjustment of the lodestar figure was seen in the Serrano cases [Serrano v. Priest, 5 Cal. 3d 584 (1971)(Serrano I), Serrano v.

  • Hearing

    Feb 09, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

CARMEL COVE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION VS KELLI L FULLER TRUSTEE OF THE TIMOTHY AND KELLI FULLER REVOCABLE TRUST DATED JULY 6 2007

See opposition UMF 87.3 through 87.9 (complicity by board members to counter the Fullers' parking challenge); see also opposition UMF 97-98 (no record of how parking vote came about, other than the proposed parking resolution was prepared by counsel at the request of the HOA's board and the cover letter and notice of special meeting was prepared by the HOA's manager).

  • Hearing

    Feb 09, 2017

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

RICHARD HARUTUNIAN VS DESTINATION HOTELS AND RESORTS INC ET

Defendants also challenge this cause of action on the merits, arguing that they had policies in place to prevent and address discrimination. (See DMF 2, 11.) “Employers are required to ‘take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination’ in the workplace.” (California Fair Employment and Housing Com'n v. Gemini Aluminum Corp. (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1024 [quoting Gov. Code, § 12940(k)].)

  • Hearing

    Feb 09, 2017

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

RICHARD HARUTUNIAN VS DESTINATION HOTELS AND RESORTS INC ET

Defendants also challenge this cause of action on the merits, arguing that they had policies in place to prevent and address discrimination. (See DMF 2, 11.) “Employers are required to ‘take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination’ in the workplace.” (California Fair Employment and Housing Com'n v. Gemini Aluminum Corp. (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1024 [quoting Gov. Code, § 12940(k)].)

  • Hearing

    Feb 09, 2017

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

CARMEL COVE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION VS KELLI L FULLER TRUSTEE OF THE TIMOTHY AND KELLI FULLER REVOCABLE TRUST DATED JULY 6 2007

See opposition UMF 87.3 through 87.9 (complicity by board members to counter the Fullers' parking challenge); see also opposition UMF 97-98 (no record of how parking vote came about, other than the proposed parking resolution was prepared by counsel at the request of the HOA's board and the cover letter and notice of special meeting was prepared by the HOA's manager).

  • Hearing

    Feb 09, 2017

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

CARMEL COVE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION VS KELLI L FULLER TRUSTEE OF THE TIMOTHY AND KELLI FULLER REVOCABLE TRUST DATED JULY 6 2007

See opposition UMF 87.3 through 87.9 (complicity by board members to counter the Fullers' parking challenge); see also opposition UMF 97-98 (no record of how parking vote came about, other than the proposed parking resolution was prepared by counsel at the request of the HOA's board and the cover letter and notice of special meeting was prepared by the HOA's manager).

  • Hearing

    Feb 09, 2017

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION VS. PARADISE ASSOCIATES, INC.

The Grossmans challenge this specific entry as "more likely than not unrelated to this case and a billing entry error." The entry refers to emails to "plaintiff's counsel" when Cayaban is counsel for Plaintiff Cal Fire in this case. Cal Fire offers no response to Gossman's challenge to this entry in reply. Therefore, the court reduces the hours spent by 1.0 hours.

  • Hearing

    Feb 09, 2017

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

CARMEL COVE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION VS KELLI L FULLER TRUSTEE OF THE TIMOTHY AND KELLI FULLER REVOCABLE TRUST DATED JULY 6 2007

See opposition UMF 87.3 through 87.9 (complicity by board members to counter the Fullers' parking challenge); see also opposition UMF 97-98 (no record of how parking vote came about, other than the proposed parking resolution was prepared by counsel at the request of the HOA's board and the cover letter and notice of special meeting was prepared by the HOA's manager).

  • Hearing

    Feb 09, 2017

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

CITIZENS TO SAVE COLLEGE AVENUE VS CITY OF CLAREMONT

Petitioner Citizens to Save College Avenue (“Petitioner” or “Citizens”) seeks a peremptory writ of mandate, setting aside the EIR and Master Plan Update approval. [The court critically notes that Petitioner has raised multiple issues that were never raised in its Petition. Petitioner contends that its Petition alleges violation of CEQA generally, and therefore, it is allowed to raise new CEQA violations in its Opening Brief. (Reply, 1:23-24.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 09, 2017

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

LEAH B HERSKOVITZ VS B D MANAGEMENT CORPORATION ET AL

Herskovitz”) peremptory challenge against Judge Fahey. Judge Bruguera set the case for trial on December 9, 2014. This trial date was vacated upon ex parte application by BDM and Teitelbaum. Thereafter, the case languished and Judge Bruguera set an OSC re: Dismissal. The OSC was discharged on November 9, 2015 and Judge Bruguera reset the trial date for March 28, 2016.

  • Hearing

    Feb 09, 2017

THOMAS SCHULTHEIS ET AL VS OCWEN LOAN SERVICING LLC ET AL

The court held that a borrower lacks standing to challenge the assignment of a note and deed of trust on the basis of a defect in the securitization process because the borrower is not a party to the assignment and the assignment does not affect the borrower’s rights or obligations under the loan in any manner. Id., at 820. In an identical ruling, the court in Jenkins v.

  • Hearing

    Feb 08, 2017

  « first    1 ... 395 396 397 398 399 400

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.