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

THRESSA D. YOUNG VS BLUE SKY CAPITAL REALTY INC., ET AL.

Defendants argue Young lacks standing to challenge the foreclosure sale, set it aside, or to bring any claims that arises from a foreclosure sale because Young has not “done equity by tendering the obligation in full.” (Mtn., at 5.) In opposition, Young contends tender is not required “as this would frustrate and be inconsistent with the purpose of the claims and would be inequitable to do so.” (Opp., at 4.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 17, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

OSUNA V. CHALEKSON

Chalekson is welcome to challenge it by way of demurrer or other appropriate motion. (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court, supra, 213 Cal.App.3d at p. 1048.) Plaintiff shall file and serve her SAC by December 4, 2020. Evidentiary Objections Plaintiff objects to all of Dr. Chalekson’s evidence on the grounds that it is not authenticated, and on grounds of hearsay. The Court notes that the exhibits are authenticated by the declaration of Dr. Chalekson’s counsel.

  • Hearing

    Nov 17, 2020

PAUL RAMAGLIA VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, ET AL.

Motions to strike are used to challenge defects in the pleadings not subject to demurrer. Ferraro v. Camarlinghi, 161 Cal. App. 4th 509, 529 (2008). Any party may move to strike the whole or any part of a pleading within the time allotted to respond to the pleading. Code Civ. Proc. § 435(b)(1). The allegations of a complaint “must be liberally construed, with a view to substantial justice between the parties.” Code Civ. Proc. § 452.

  • Hearing

    Nov 17, 2020

JANE JG DOE VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A CALIFORNIA LOCAL PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.

On March 10, 2020, this action was reassigned due to a peremptory challenge and the demurrer and motion to strike were taken off calendar.

  • Hearing

    Nov 17, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

KEITH M FROMM VS WELLS FARGO BANK N A 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

    Nov 17, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ROBERT KIRSCH, ET AL. V. COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA, ET AL.

Because motions to strike, like demurrers, challenge the legal sufficiency of allegations in a complaint, claims not presented in compliance with the Government Claims Act are likewise subject to motions to strike. The paragraphs at issue are: 38. Prior to retiring, Plaintiff Garnica, as Plaintiff Lake’s supervisor, wrote Plaintiff Lake’s yearly evaluation and gave Plaintiff Lake a 5-star rating.

  • Hearing

    Nov 16, 2020

NICHOLAS LEWIS, ET AL. V. COTTAGE HEALTH, INC., ET AL.

Defendants initially challenge the FAC on the ground that Lewis does not have standing to pursue any of the causes of action on behalf of himself individually. Code of Civil Procedure Section 367 provides that “[e]very action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest, except as otherwise provided by statute.” The “real party in interest” is defined as the person or entity possessing the right to sue based upon the substantive law. Doe v.

  • Hearing

    Nov 16, 2020

SCHOONOVER VS DECAPRIO

Opposing party Defendants challenge the motion based on insufficient notice but have filed an opposition, and no request was made to continue the hearing. Their opposition on the merits constitutes a waiver of objection to the notice issue. (Clark v. Stabond Corp. (1987) 197 Cal.App.3d 50, 59.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 16, 2020

WILLIAM JEFFERSON VS DOUD ASSOCIATES INC., ET AL.

Motion to Strike The filing of an amended complaint renders a challenge to a prior complaint as moot. (See JKC3H8 v. Colton (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 468, 477.) “[A]n amendatory pleading supersedes the original one, which ceases to perform any function as a pleading.” (Foreman & Clark Corp. v. Fallon (1971) 3 Cal.3d 875, 884.) This demurrer is moot because it relates to Plaintiff’s initially filed complaint and Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint after the filing of this demurrer.

  • Hearing

    Nov 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

HOWARD SMITH, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS WEST HILLS HOSPITAL & MEDICAL CENTER, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Legal Standard 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. A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal. App. 4th 740, 747.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

DARIN JAMES VS BAUSCH & STROEBEL MACHINE COMPANY, A CORPORATION, ET AL.

There are several methods in which a party can challenge venue. “First, a party may move to stay or dismiss the action on the ground of inconvenient forum. (§ 418.10, subd. (a)(1).) The failure to make such a motion at the time of filing a demurrer constitutes a waiver of the inconvenient forum issue. (§ 418.10, subd.

  • Hearing

    Nov 16, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

SAMUELS VS RANCHO REPROGRAPHICS

OVERRULE the demurrer in its entirety. 3rd CofA: Plaintiff alleges a claim for sexual harassment as the 2nd cause of action, to which Defendants do not challenge by demurrer. The facts supporting the sexual harassment claim are assumed as true for purposes of the demurrer. (Del E. Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co. (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 593, 604.) The failure to prevent claim is properly predicated on the sexual harassment claim. (Complaint, ¶ 82.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 16, 2020

HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF SANTA BARBARA VS MARY SCHUETZ

A general demurrer is always available to challenge an unlawful detainer complaint on the ground that the complaint fails to allege compliance with applicable prefiling notice requirements. Borsuk v. Appellate Div. of the Superior Court, 242 Cal.App.4th 607, 613 (2015). “Because of the summary nature of an unlawful detainer action, a notice is valid only if the lessor strictly complies with the statutorily mandated notice requirements.” Bevill v.

  • Hearing

    Nov 13, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

VEGA VS. MANOR CARE

It remains to be seen whether the continued viability of this cause of action really adds anything of substance to the rest of the trial of the case, and determining what fees should be allocated to this statutory cause of action may be a challenge in the future. But that is a topic for a later time. All parties are informed that effective January 1, 2021, this case is reassigned to Department 7 (Judge Baskin).

  • Hearing

    Nov 13, 2020

LUCIO GONZALEZ BAHENA VS PRIORITYWORKFORCE, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

On balance, Plaintiff’s unconscionability challenge fails. Conclusion Priority’s motion to contest the settlement’s good faith is denied. Priority’s and JSL’s motion to compel arbitration is granted. Priority and JSL are to jointly share and pay for the costs unique to arbitration.

  • Hearing

    Nov 13, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

TOLARA GROSS VS EDUCATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

In opposition, Plaintiff does not challenge the existence of the arbitration agreement or Plaintiff’s signature on the agreement. Instead, Plaintiff opposes on the ground that the right to arbitrate has been waived and that the agreement is unenforceable as it is both procedurally and substantively unconscionable. (Opposition pp.4-15 §§ III(A-C).) Accordingly, Defendant has met its burden in showing that an arbitration agreement exists between the parties.

  • Hearing

    Nov 13, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

SAUGUS PROPERTIES LP VS CRIMSON RESOURCE MANAGEMENT CORP., ET AL.

Defendants Venice Holdings, LLC, Lexington Partners, LLC challenge the validity of the complaint on grounds that Plaintiff Saugus Properties improperly seeks to rewrite or impose new terms of the lease agreement. According to moving defendants, Plaintiff both seeks to unilaterally assign the drill site location adjacent to the Lexington Partners portion of the property, and limit the drill site to a 34,975 square feet drill site, rather than the 60,000 square feet provided in the lease.

  • Hearing

    Nov 13, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

MANUEL BOROBIA VS COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., (A "LENDER"), ET AL.

Defendants in opposition challenge the lack of any authority in support of the requested relief. Although Plaintiff moves to “dismiss” attorney Chaffin, Plaintiff actually seeks to disqualify attorney Chaffin from appearing on the action. The basis of the requested relief lacks articulated support under the standard for disqualification. As a threshold issue, Plaintiff fails to raise a basis of standing to challenge The Wolf Firm’s choice of its own representation.

  • Hearing

    Nov 13, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Foreclosure

DAWN SUERMANN VS EMERALD HEALTH SERVICES, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

However, with its Reply, Emerald responded to Suermann’s signature challenge with supplemental evidence. In the supplemental evidence, Scexplains how the eStaff365 platform works including how a user clicks on an electronic document, such as the TAAs, and clicks to sign. (Scott 2 Decl., ¶ 7.) Scott also declares that she “ran a specific report regarding the electronic acknowledgments contained in the eStaff365 platform for Ms. Suermann,” specifically for the TAAs. (Scott 2 Decl., ¶ 9.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 13, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

ELECTION INTEGRITY PROJECT CALIFORNIA, INC. V. ORTH ET AL.

The voter’s home address or signature are to be released only if the person’s vote is challenged, but only to the challenger, to elections officials, and to other persons as necessary to make, defend against, or adjudicate the challenge. (Ibid., subd. (c)(1).)

  • Hearing

    Nov 13, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, ET AL. VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

Tejon also notes Petitioner’s challenge to the Wildlife Relocation Plan (MM 7-2), the Oak Woodland Mitigation Plan (MM 7-11), and Streambed and Wetland Habitat Creation and Enhancement Plan (MM 7-12) fail for similar reasons: “each of these plans is subject to a specific performance standard, contains a menu of feasible actions for achieving the performance objectives, and requires these objective be obtained before [Tejon] may alter the physical environment.”

  • Hearing

    Nov 13, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

SPERRY V. ALGONQUIN POWER AND UTILITIES CORP.

Also, by including the facts set forth herein, Defendants are not waiving their right to challenge the admissibility of such facts in connection with this motion or for other purposes in this case.” ¶ We offer two observations about this footnote.

  • Hearing

    Nov 13, 2020

RENE ALVAREZ VS BERSHTEL ENTERPRISES LLC

to the Settlement, whether by objection or appeal, is resolved in favor of enforcement of the Settlement; and (vii) if no challenge to the Settlement is made, the last date by which all appeals of the Judgment could be filed has lapsed such that the Judgment becomes final.” (¶10

  • Hearing

    Nov 13, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

GORDY V. CAREMORE HEALTH PLAN, INC., ET AL.

The challenge is limited to the “four corners” of the pleading (which includes exhibits attached and incorporated therein) or from matters outside the pleading which are judicially noticeable under Evidence Code sections 451 or 452.

  • Hearing

    Nov 13, 2020

CADENCE ACQUISITIONS LLC VS. SAID RAFEH

Ct. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 365, 384-385 ["A demurrer is not the appropriate vehicle to challenge a portion of a cause of action demanding an improper remedy.... The appropriate procedural device for challenging a portion of a cause of action seeking an improper remedy is a motion to strike."].)

  • Hearing

    Nov 12, 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.