What is a Peremptory Challenge (CCP 170.6)?

Useful Resources for Peremptory Challenge - CCP 170.6

Recent Rulings on Peremptory Challenge - CCP 170.6

151-175 of 10000 results

SOFIA VERGARA VS NICHOLAS LOEB ET AL

Loeb has challenged and continues to challenge the validity and enforceability of the terms of the form directive. Vergara, on the other hand, contends that the form directive is valid and the agreement between the parties regarding the disposition of the embryos should be enforced.

  • Hearing

    Jan 08, 2021

SMADAR REES VS MARIAN PODPORA ET AL

City now moves for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication as follows: First Cause of Action-unreasonable search and seizure, facial and as-applied challenge, under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and California Constitution, Art. I, Section 13, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Second Cause of Action-substantive due process, facial and as-applied challenge, under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and California Constitution, Art.

  • Hearing

    Jan 08, 2021

JADIN SANCHEZ VS THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY 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

    Jan 08, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

EMAD YOUNIS VS ROBERT MELGOZA, ET AL.

Defendants in reply reiterate the improper service of the summons and complaint and lack of statement of damages, challenge Plaintiff’s interpretation of the Covid-19 restrictions, as assert their diligence in filing the motions. A plaintiff has the initial burden to establish valid statutory service of a summons and complaint. (Dill v. Berquist Const. Co., Inc. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1439-40; Floveyor Internat. v. Sup. Ct. (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 789, 794.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 08, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

SUNIL PATEL VS IMEG CORP,, ET AL.

Plaintiff does not present any argument to establish that additional discovery is necessary to challenge the objective reasonability of Defendants’ decision to assert and continue to prosecute IMEG’s claims in the Underlying Action. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s requested discovery concerning Defendants’ belief falls outside the scope of allowable discovery for this element of his claim. (See 1-800 Contacts, supra, 107 Cal.App.4th at p. 593.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 08, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

PIRALI VS. DOMAINE CHANDON, INC.

Why was he arguably atypical, and how serious a challenge would this pose to certification? Similarly, what individualized questions did Defendant think would defeat commonality? Defendant also intended to argue Plaintiff’s claims were not covered by the Automatic Renewal Law at all. Why not, and how serious a challenge would this argument pose to classwide recovery? 8.

  • Hearing

    Jan 08, 2021

ANTHONY K. CHU VS LONG Z. LIU, ET AL.

But this does not appear to reflect the kind of moment in which an attorney should realize that his client has no basis to challenge an alter ego finding, and that zealous advocacy should have at that point ceased. Chu also relies on the Order of Judgment in Qi v.

  • Hearing

    Jan 08, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JADIN SANCHEZ VS THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY 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

    Jan 08, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

LISA GOODRICH VS GUILLERMO EDUARDO PADILLA JR ET AL

On November 6, 2020, a Peremptory Challenge to Judicial Officer (Code Civ. Proc. Section 170.6) was filed as to Ralph C. Hofer, Judge, on behalf of Erik Goodrich, Cross Defendant. An opposition to Peremptory Challenge was filed on November 6, 2020, and a Reply filed on November 9, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Jan 08, 2021

ROBERT GOULD, AN INDIVIDUAL VS THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

In Gregory in particular, the court rejected the defendants' challenge to a jury instruction based on staffing and other regulations, which the defendants alleged were too vague to provide meaningful guidance to the jury. The court held the jury could ascertain the regulations' meaning because the jury heard testimony describing how nursing homes construed and applied the standards regarding sufficient staff. (Gregory, at p. 524.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 08, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CLARK & TREVITHICK, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION VS VIVIAN JASPER, 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 (i.e., no “speaking demurrers”). A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 08, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

PIROMALLO VS GALLO

Samples (1951) 104 Cal.App.2d 311, is distinguishable because it addresses the issue of partnership formation in an evidence-based context, not on a pleading challenge such as that before the court on this demurrer. The other issues Defendants raise, including whether a partnership was formed and whether the partnership or Gallos Brothers, LLC owns Civico 1845, are factual issues not properly resolved on demurrer. In a footnote Defendants also raise the bar of the statute of limitations.

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2021

LILLIAN WOODFIN-PARKER VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

What authority exists suggests that claim preclusion would not apply in any event, since civil service proceedings to challenge disciplinary actions and FEHA civil actions, although potentially targeting identical adverse employment conduct, have been held to rest upon different primary rights.

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

SARA HART VS DEBORAH PERLMAN, ET AL

Like demurrers, motions for judgment on the pleadings challenge the legal sufficiency of the allegations, not their veracity. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) Any defects must either appear on the face of the pleading, or else be taken by judicial notice. (Bezirdjian v. O'Reilly (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 316, 321-22.) The parties’ ability to prove their respective claims is of no concern. (Cloud v. Northrop Grumman Corp. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 995, 99.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2021

KATRINA GRENIER VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

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

    Jan 07, 2021

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

EQUITY STOCK CORPORATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS ENERGY EFFICIENT EQUITY, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.

This timeframe should allow Equity adequate time to secure alternative representation prior to defending the challenge to its complaint, but if Equity requires additional time, the Court will continue the demurrer hearing to permit Equity to secure counsel with whom it has a viable attorney-client relationship. The Court finds, therefore, that Goldberg’s motion should be granted on the condition that he file the required Proposed Order, which should include the modified dates ordered by the Court. IV.

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2021

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

MASCOT CAR RENTAL W INC, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION. VS AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.

In a third challenge to Plaintiff Mascot Car Rental W, Inc.’s (“Plaintiff”) operative pleading, Defendant Amazon Logistics, Inc.’s (“Amazon”) demurs and moves to strike the causes of action for intentional and negligent interference with prospective economic relations from the now twice-amended complaint (“SAC”). Meet and Confer Amazon has filed a meet and confer declaration that complies with Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41. (Kendall Decl. ¶¶ 1-2.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2021

CUMMINGS VS DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES

“If the applicant wishes to challenge the submission of their name on the certified list, the applicant shall make a timely written request for review to the local child support agency who certified the applicant’s name. A request for review pursuant to this section shall be resolved in the same manner and timeframe provided for resolution of a complaint pursuant to Section 17800.

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2021

JAMES T. JURAND VS BERBERIAN EUROPEAN MOTORS, LLC, INDIVIDUALLY AND D.B.A. MERCEDES BENZ OF STOCKTON

That way, if the demurrer or other challenge is upheld, the appellate court will know on what ground the amendment was rejected. (California Cas. Gen. Ins. Co. v. Sup. Ct ((1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 281, (disapproved on other grounds in Kransco v. American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 390, 407).) This Court chooses to follow the better practice, and will not rule on the merits of the proposed amended pleading at this stage in the proceedings—the motion to amend.

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2021

  • Judge Jayne Lee
  • County

    San Joaquin County, CA

LUIS JUAREZ VS. 9010 TOBIAS ASSOCIATES, LLC;

Out of an abundance of caution, the defendants waive their right to challenge entitlement of statutory reasonable attorney fees notwithstanding the case of Linton v. County of Contra Costa (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 628, 633. Defendants reserve the right to appeal any other issues other than the entitlement to the statutory fees. The settlement agreement was fully executed on September 24, 2020. Plaintiff has demonstrated entitlement to attorneys’ fees pursuant to the settlement agreement.

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

Regardless, this action has now been consolidated with the probate court action for al purposes, rendering this challenge moot. Evidentiary Ruling Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice of Exhibits A through U is granted pursuant to Ev.

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2021

  • Judge

    : Timothy Volkmann</p>

  • County

    Santa Cruz County, CA

CATHOLIC MEDICAL MISSION BOARD, INC. A 501(C)(3) CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION VS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.

If a charity wishes to challenge the Attorney General’s order, the charity may “request a hearing to review that action.” §12591.1(e). Pet. Op. Br. at 17. CMMB argues that the Attorney General is a prosecutor, not a judicial officer.

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2021

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

FOOD FOR THE POOR, INC. VS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.

If a charity wishes to challenge the Attorney General’s order, the charity may “request a hearing to review that action.” §12591.1(e). Pet. Op. Br. at 17. CMMB argues that the Attorney General is a prosecutor, not a judicial officer.

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2021

ISABEL BERG, ET AL. VS TUTTLE CLICK, INC, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION., ET AL.

Like demurrers, motions for judgment on the pleadings challenge the legal sufficiency of the allegations, not their veracity. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) All facts alleged in the complaint are deemed admitted, and the complaint is given a reasonable interpretation as a whole and all parts in their context. (Lance, supra, at 198.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2021

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

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.) This argument is of dispositive effect only upon the first cause of action for wrongful foreclosure, however, which is the only remaining claim based solely upon Citimortgage’s alleged lack of authority to foreclose. (SAC ¶¶ 32–41.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Foreclosure

  « 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.