What is a Peremptory Challenge (CCP 170.6)?

Useful Rulings on Peremptory Challenge - CCP 170.6

Recent Rulings on Peremptory Challenge - CCP 170.6

101-125 of 10000 results

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

  • 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

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

LETICIA MUNOZ OLMOS, ET AL. VS JRDTSP LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY DBA SCOTT ROBINSON CHRYSLER DODGE JEEP RAM, ET AL.

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.) When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. (Taylor v.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MARIA DEL CARMEN VALDOVINOS ROSALES, ET AL. VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

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

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

GUL JAISINGHANI VS ARMEN R. TER-OGANESIAN

Plaintiff’s challenge to this cost is unpersuasive. Despite Plaintiff’s contention otherwise, AEC argues it did not “cancel” its attempts to serve Ms. Arvayo, rather she eluded being served with process. Had AEC continued to attempt to serve her, it would necessarily be requesting more service costs than it is now. Attached as Exhibit D demonstrates that AEC paid First Legal Network $523.91 in service costs for attempting service on Arvayo. AEC is entitled to recover these fees from Plaintiff.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

INCEPTION ALTANOVA, LLC VS NORTH STAR HOLDINGS, INC.

Kaweske threatened to create public controversy—during which time relevant ordinances would not allow the amendment of the permits—by going to a local community activist group that would challenge any effort by the seller to amend the permits. This was intentional, extortive misconduct designed to leverage a benefit to North Star. (FAC ¶ 19 [emphasis added].) Plaintiffs further allege “The seller correctly interpreted Mr. Kaweske’s threats as extortion and decided to no longer deal with North Star.

  • Hearing

SEVILLA VS SAN DIEGO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES

The time to challenge this was in 2011, not nine years later. He has not established a forgery with admissible evidence, and he has not established that Mr. Klueck did not advise him of his right to seek appellate review. Starting at page 12 of the opposition, petitioner recounts the proceedings leading up to the November 2016 order. Again, he was represented by counsel (Ms. Redparth). He alleges now that she made agreements he did not consent to.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

WARLIN V. SERVICE CORPORATION INTERNATIONAL, INC.

Standard at 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 subject to judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.30(a).) A demurrer tests only the legal sufficiency of the pleading, and “[t]he facts alleged in the pleading are deemed to be true, however improbable they may be. [citation].” (Berg & Berg Enterprises, LLC v. Boyle (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 1020, 1034.)

  • Hearing

WILLIAM DWIGHT TOUCHBERRY ET AL VS DOES 1 TO 250

Defendant’s expert’s testimony that he relied on literature and citation to a handful of studies and surveys and Plaintiff’s expert testimony, in which both challenge the reliability of the other, without any explanation on the methodology and material that experts in this field reasonably rely or accept does not assist the court at all. Defendant’s expert testimony is silent on the types of literature and studies that are generally accepted or reasonably relied upon in forming these opinions.

  • Hearing

LATHAM VS. PAUL BLANCO'S GOOD CAR COMPANY

Plaintiff notably does not challenge whether the Arbitration Agreement meets the minimal requirements for mandatory employment arbitration under Armendariz and instead focuses on the arbitration provision contained within the Employment Agreement. However, because the court is enforcing arbitration under the Arbitration Agreement, it need not conduct an analysis of the Employment Agreement. In fact, the only challenge to the Arbitration Agreement is Plaintiff’s In Sanchez v.

  • Hearing

GATES VS LA JOLLA CROSSROADS 1 LLC

Once Plaintiffs and their counsel have received the records, they retain the right to challenge the designation of a record in whole or in part, consistent with the October 9, 2019 stipulated protective order. Further, to the extent Mr. Posnock's search reveals any records that are subject to attorney-client privilege, spousal privilege, or other applicable privilege, Mr. Posnock is directed to produce a privilege log in lieu of production.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

DE LA ROSA VS PEREZ

In addition, Rudolfo asserts that since his response was the same as Anjelie’s and Plaintiff did not challenge her response, then his response is proper. Regardless of whether Plaintiff failed to challenge Anjelie’s response to FR No. 12.1, she is challenging Rudolfo’s response. No objections were asserted and each subpart requires a response. Thus, a further response is required. FR Nos. 12.2 asks whether Rudolfo or anyone on his behalf interviewed anyone concerning the incident.

  • Hearing

FIX THE CITY, INC. VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

Petitioner does not challenge either of these findings, which are supported by substantial evidence. (See e.g. AR 3896-3902.) Petitioner narrowly challenges the EIR’s analysis of parking impacts based on the following contention: “Given the location of the Ogden Garage just feet from the subway station portal, the likelihood that more than these ‘spare’ spaces will be taken by users of the Metro is significant.

  • Hearing

AMANDA A. BINNS, ET AL. VS BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

Rptr. 186], our colleagues in the Second District granted a peremptory writ to order the trial court to compel arbitration with a nonsignatory that expressed “willingness to arbitrate” but did not file its own motion to compel as well as a nonsignatory who was a third party beneficiary of the contract containing the arbitration provision.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

D'ANDRE HUMES, ET AL. VS MARCILLA HAYSLETT, ET AL.

On January 30, 2019, Defendant Brian Ebejer filed a 170.6 challenge to Department 47, thereby leading to the transfer of the action to Department 49. On March 27, 2020, Defendants Ebejer and Chelsea Ma answered and filed a cross-complaint for Declaratory Relief, Quiet Title and Restitution/Unjust Enrichment. RULING: Denied. Plaintiff D’Andre Humes moves to compel further responses to Request for Production of Documents (set one) from Defendant Linda Ojeda, numbers 1-32.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

WAFA BITAR, ET AL. VS EMANATE HEALTH, A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION, DBA CITRUS VALLEY HEALTH PARTNERS, INC., ET AL.

Plaintiffs also cite to their deposition testimony to challenge the basis of Defendant’s expert opinion. Paine opines that based on Plaintiffs’ testimony, Defendant failed to adhere to the standard of care because the nurses did not notify the physicians of heavy bleeding or severe unrelenting pain. Paine further states that the failure to document these complaints is below the standard of care.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

THERESA MARTINEZ, ET AL. VS INNOVATIVE FERTILITY CENTER, A PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL CORPORATION, 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. DISCUSSION Plaintiff Theresa Martinez requests that the court quash the deposition subpoena for the production of business records served on Citibank. Plaintiff Angela Martinez requests that the court quash the deposition subpoena for the production of business records served on Wells Fargo.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

JAVIER VS CELIS

Although it is improper to consider Plaintiff's declaration on a pleading challenge, the court considers Plaintiff's declaration, and the additional facts set forth in Plaintiff's opposition, as a proffer of facts from Plaintiff in seeking leave to amend. While BAIC argues that Plaintiff's proposed amendment does not cure the pleading deficiencies BAIC raises, the court does not reach this issue. Instead, as this is BAIC's first challenge to the pleading, the court allows Plaintiff leave to amend.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Complex

  • Sub Type

    Writ

ENERGY SOLUTION PROS LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL. VS KENNETH J. PINGREE, ET AL.

A motion for protective order also lies to challenge a “declaration of necessity” served with more than 35 RFAs. The motion must be made “promptly,” and before expiration of the 30-day period within which to respond. CCP § 2033.280(a). A motion for a protective order challenging the declaration of necessity places in issue whether the additional discovery requests are justified. CCP § 2033.080(b)(2).

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

BRANDON HARBERSON VS. MICHAEL EDMOND SAYEGH

Defendant's challenge to these claims hinges on his contention that Plaintiff failed to plead his ownership of the vehicle. However, the allegations sufficiently plead Plaintiff's rightful ownership and/or right to possession of the vehicle. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff's causes of action are based on the following allegations: On 1/17/19, Plaintiff purchased a 1965 Mustang from non-party David Moreno, who represented he was the owner. (¶ 5, 7).

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

WEI VS CONEJO VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL

This is sufficient to overcome a challenge to the pleading. The demurrer to the fourth cause of action is overruled. Third amended complaint to be filed by December 1, 2020.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

SVETLANA KRAVCHENKO, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS PERLA LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

On July 6, 2020, Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion to Challenge the Good Faith of a Settlement. On October 23, 2020, Mars filed an Opposition.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

FIRST SECURE EQUITY LLC, ET AL. VS 2304 SAWTELLE LLC, ET AL.

Plaintiffs also allege that Defendants filed a 170.6 declaration to disqualify Judge Karlan. As a matter of law, these facts do not amount to abuse of process. The filing of a 170.6 declaration is analogous to the filing of a lawsuit. Furthermore, section 170.6 is liberally construed. (See Stephens v. Superior Court (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 54, 61–62.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

BARBARA HOUSLEY V. FCI LENDER SERVICES, INC.

Standard at 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 subject to judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.30(a).) A demurrer tests only the legal sufficiency of the pleading, and “[t]he facts alleged in the pleading are deemed to be true, however improbable they may be. [citation].” (Berg & Berg Enterprises, LLC v. Boyle (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 1020, 1034.)

  • Hearing

  « 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.