What is a Peremptory Challenge (CCP 170.6)?

Useful Rulings on Peremptory Challenge - CCP 170.6

Recent Rulings on Peremptory Challenge - CCP 170.6

126-150 of 10000 results

NABIL ABDELMASIEH GHALY VS TROJAN CAPITAL INVESTMENTS, LLC

The court will hear from Plaintiff regarding any basis for leave to amend. 2nd and 5th CAUSES OF ACTION DECLARATORY RELIEF and UNLAWFUL BUSINESS PRACTICES: The California Supreme Court held that in order for a borrower to possess standing to challenge an assignment, the borrower must (1) have suffered a nonjudicial foreclosure and (2) allege facts showing that the allegedly underlying defect renders the assignment void, rather than merely voidable. (Yvanova v.

  • Hearing

    Oct 06, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

LAW OFFICE OF EVAN L GINSBURG VS SAVIN

. * * * CIT Bank now demurs to the Cross-Complaint and argues: (1) the litigation privilege bars both causes of action against CIT Bank; (2) the Cross-Complaint does not set forth sufficient facts to support either cause of action against CIT Bank; and (3) the Cross-Complaint is procedurally improper because Alfredo was required to follow the procedures set forth in CCP § 697.410 to challenge an abstract of judgment.

  • Hearing

    Oct 06, 2020

HTD PINE PRODUCTS, LLC., A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS DZUNG D. NGUYEN, ET AL.

Initial Note Cross-Complainants argue, in opposition to the motion to strike, that Cross-Defendants “do not challenge nor deny their wrongful conduct” by way of the motion to strike. Doing so would be inappropriate. The purpose of a motion to strike is to determine whether the facts pled in the complaint, taken as true, support imposition of punitive damages.

  • Hearing

    Oct 06, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

TIMOTHY BARKER, ET AL. VS STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.

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. (Code Civ. Proc., §§422.10, 589.) 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.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 06, 2020

WILLIAM COURSON VS LOS ANGELES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION ET A

Petitioner does not challenge the latter part of Finding No. 7, i.e. that Petitioner made the flashlight statement “when in fact he had only used a flashlight once under circumstances justifying such use of force.” The weight of the evidence supports that part of the finding, as well. (AR 794-795, 1325, 1607-08.) Fact Finding No. 7 is supported by the weight of the evidence.

  • Hearing

    Oct 06, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

DON LEE FARMS VS SAVAGE RIVER INC

Here, the challenge is to the answers of one defendant among five to three paragraphs in a 115 paragraph Third Amended Complaint. To follow the proferred logic of the motion, the individual allegations, or even portions of the individual allegations, as to each individual defendant could be subject to hundreds of individual motions for sanctions as the answers thereto are tested. It is clear to this Court that this is not the intent of Section 128.7.

  • Hearing

    Oct 06, 2020

PROVIDENCE INDUSTRIES LLC VS LULAROE LLC

Moving parties fail to meet their burden that their appellate challenge to the ruling on the disqualification motion has merit.

  • Hearing

    Oct 06, 2020

DF & RW, INC., DBA F& W FOODSERVICES VS PHILIP WEINBERGER, ET AL.

Defendants challenge the consumer notice requirements.

  • Hearing

    Oct 06, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

PAI VS. SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING

Bank of America, National Association (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1079, 1094-95 [“‘Where an assignment is merely voidable at the election of the assignor, third parties, and particularly the obligor, cannot ... successfully challenge the validity or effectiveness of the transfer.’ (7 Cal.Jur.3d (2012) Assignments, § 43, p. 70.)”]. Here, as set forth above, Plaintiff has not pled nor presented any evidence to show the assignment to Defendant USBANK was “void” as opposed to voidable.

  • Hearing

    Oct 06, 2020

ECCLES VS GOLD COAST PROPERTY ET. AL.

App. 4th 64, 68: "We conclude that riding a scooter is covered by the doctrine of primary assumption of risk only when the activity involves an element of danger, requires physical exertion and skill, and includes a competitive challenge. A triable issue exists in this case regarding whether Tatiana was riding her scooter in such a manner." For analytical purposes of this motion the court equates Plaintiff's riding of the skateboard with plaintiff's riding of a scooter in Childs. A comparison to Bertsch v.

  • Hearing

    Oct 05, 2020

POLIZZI VS. HENRY MATOZA CONST

Fourth Cause of Action (Breach of Contract) The Bordogna Defendants challenge the fourth cause of action for breach of contract. “To prevail on a cause of action for breach of contract, the plaintiff must prove (1) the contract, (2) the plaintiff’s performance of the contract or excuse for nonperformance, (3) the defendant’s breach, and (4) the resulting damage to the plaintiff.” (Richman v. Hartley (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1182, 1186.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 05, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

SKYBOUND INTERACTIVE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL. VS DISRUPTOR BEAM, INC.

Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Causes of Action Cross-Defendants challenge Disruptor Beam’s fraud claims. Disruptor Beam’s three fraud claims are for (1) intentional misrepresentation against the Spicy Sauce Defendants, (2) negligent misrepresentation against the Spicy Sauce Defendants, and (3) promissory fraud against Spicy Sauce. 1.

  • Hearing

    Oct 05, 2020

YOEL TRUJANO VS ASPIRE PUBLIC SCHOOLS

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 05, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

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

    Oct 05, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

BRENDEM PLONG, ET AL. VS RUSHMORE LOAN MANAGEMENT SERVICE LLC., ET AL.

“California law does not permit a preemptive action to challenge a foreclosing party’s authority to pursue foreclosure.” (Jordan v. Bank of Am., N.A. (E.D. Cal. 2019) 396 F.Supp.3d 922, 929; Saterbak v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 808, 815, 819). Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s demurrer to the third, fourth, and fifth causes of action is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

  • Hearing

    Oct 05, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

  • Judge

    Paul A. Bacigalupo or Virginia Keeny

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JEWELRY THEATRE BUILDING, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS FARZAD MANSOURI, 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

    Oct 05, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

DEBORAH MILLER VS PIH HEALTH HOSPITAL - DOWNEY, ET AL.

Rather, the court addressed three separate questions addressing the admissibility of an expert opinion generally, the adequacy of the expert opinions at bar, and the defendants’ right to challenge general causation regarding specific chemicals. (See id. at pp. 561-562.) Similar to Lockheed Litigation Cases, the court in Leslie G. v. Perry & Associates (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 472 does not discuss the necessity of expert testimony in products liability cases.

  • Hearing

    Oct 05, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

VINCE LATKINS, ET AL. VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY OFFICE OF THE ASSESSOR, 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 05, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

CLAUDETTE MARIE LESLIE, ET AL. VS NEW CENTURY MORTGAGE CORPORATION, ET AL.

Homeowners alleging wrongful foreclosure lack standing to challenge an assignment that is merely voidable by one of the parties to the assignment, in contrast to an assignment that is in fact void. (See Yvanova v. New Century Mortgage Corp. (2016) 62 Cal.4th 919, 936.) Accordingly, Plaintiffs may not attempt to quiet title as against Defendants.

  • Hearing

    Oct 05, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Foreclosure

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY VS ARSEN STEPANYAN, ET AL.

There is no further evidence that Defendants presently challenge Plaintiff’s denial of that claim or initiated any suit against Plaintiff. Defendants have not even contested this action, despite being served. Plaintiff has not cited one case, and this court has yet to find one case, that allows an insurer to obtain declaratory relief at this stage. B.

  • Hearing

    Oct 05, 2020

PAVEL ZAMOSHNIKOV VS. CODE COMPLIANCE OF CITY OF SACRAMENTO

Petitioner appealed the fine, a hearing was held, the hearing examiner upheld the fine, and Petitioner filed this action to challenge the decision upholding the fine. On January 13, 2020, before the City had appeared, an amended petition was filed. The amended petition is captioned "AMENDED WRIT OF MANDUMADUS: REQUEST FOR AN INJUNCTION. REQUEST FOR REMOVAL OF RECORDS/LIENS/FINES."

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2020

PAVEL ZAMOSHNIKOV VS. CODE COMPLIANCE OF CITY OF SACRAMENTO

Presumably, then, the purpose of this action is to challenge that decision. 1 The City cites section 8.01.100E.

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

The City is awarded its costs on appeal in connection with White’s anti-SLAPP motion and her challenge to the attorney fee award.”

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2020

HAZEL MENDEZ, ET AL. VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC

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

    Oct 02, 2020

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

LILES VS SERVIS ON INC

A cause of action "implicitly integrated" with a challenge to the foreclosure sale fails unless the trustor can allege and establish a valid tender. Arnolds Management Corp. v. Eischen (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d 575, 579. In this case, the fourth cause of action in the complaint is "implicitly integrated" with a challenge to the foreclosure sale.

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

  « 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.