What is a Peremptory Challenge (CCP 170.6)?

Useful Rulings on Peremptory Challenge - CCP 170.6

Recent Rulings on Peremptory Challenge - CCP 170.6

151-175 of 10000 results

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

MATERIALISE NV V. CONSENSUS ORTHOPEDICS

There, the defendant brought a “Motion to Challenge Judgment” (id. at p. 700, 63 Cal.Rptr.3d 224). There were “hearings, supplemental submissions, and a motion for reconsideration.” (Id. at p. 701, 63 Cal.Rptr.3d 224.) The only issue was whether the French judgment was final, conclusive, and enforceable, a matter we determined as a matter of law.

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2020

FREMERMAN VS. KIM

Although debtor claims he did not get a fair opportunity in Colorado to either challenge the claims or appeal the adverse decision, the evidence provided in support of those contentions is woefully insufficient to permit this Court to find that Colorado lacked fundamental jurisdiction over debtor. There is also no basis to find that the judgment was obtained by extrinsic fraud.

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2020

BILELLO VS. PLATINUM PROPERTIES

“[W]here it is shown that there has been a complete failure of service of process upon a defendant, he generally has no duty to take affirmative action to preserve his right to challenge the judgment … even if he later obtains actual knowledge of it because ‘[w]hat is initially void is ever void and life may not be breathed into it by lapse of time.’

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2020

VARGAS VS. MONTANO TRUCKING

Plaintiffs dispute this point with Paul Herbert’s declaration, but do not challenge Covarrubias’ assertion that he did not see the K-rail damage the flatbed. (Plaintiff’s Sep. Stmt., No. 11.) Rather, Plaintiffs claim that Herbert’s declaration shows a K-rail could have damaged the flatbed. (Ibid.) a.

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2020

LIZA KATHRYN WOMACK VS FIRST ACCESS ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, 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 02, 2020

PATRICIA GOMEZ VS FCA US LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

Defendants did not challenge the amount of costs sought in the amended memorandum of costs—$833.06—which appears to have been reasonably incurred. Therefore, plaintiff may be entitled to an award, including attorney fees and costs of $9,506.10. The court reserves the right to modify this tentative ruling based on how plaintiff chooses to explain and proceed regarding the amended motion. Plaintiff’s request for the court to impose a deadline for payment is denied.

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

COUNTS LAW FIRM, PC VS TIA BERG, ET AL.

With respect to a challenge to service, the burden is on plaintiff to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that all jurisdictional criteria are met. Mihlon v. Superior Court (1985, 2nd Dist.) 169 Cal.App.3d 703, 710; Ziller Electronics Lab GmbH v. Superior Court (1988, 2nd Dist.) 206 Cal.App.3d 1222, 1232-1233. Plaintiff must make this showing based on admissible evidence. Ziller Electronics, at 1233; see also Evangelize China Fellowship, Inc. v.

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

BELCHER V. DAKOTA NOTE, LLC, ET AL.

Hewlett-Packard Co. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1164, 1176 (also stating that “[t]he defendant cannot simply challenge the plaintiff to prove his case by opposition”); see also Code Civ. Proc. § 437c, subd.(b)(1) (stating that “[t]he motion shall be supported by affidavits, declarations, admissions, answers to interrogatories, depositions, and matters of which judicial notice shall or may be taken”); see also Gaggero v.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

GUERRA V. SIKAFFY

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 C3d 311, 318.) No other extrinsic evidence can be considered. (Ion Equip. Corp. v. Nelson (1980) 110 CA3d 868, 881.) The Court does not consider the facts outside the four corners of the Cross-Complaint, Guerra’s declaration, or the untimely request for judicial notice.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

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

    Oct 01, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Foreclosure

LATASHA MCGREW, ET AL. VS ANZA MANAGEMENT COMPANY

[T]he text is ‘virtually impenetrable’ and ‘challenge[s] the limits of legibility.’” (Id., at p. 128.) The court emphasized that “[t]he substance of the agreement is similarly opaque. The sentences are complex, filled with statutory references and legal jargon.” (Id.) Plaintiffs contend that the arbitration provision is in “tiny font” and “buried toward the end of Section XVIII” of the lease agreement, rendering the document nearly illegible. (Opp., pg. 11.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

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

    Oct 01, 2020

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS CERTIFICATE TRUSTEE ON BEHALF OF BOSCO CREDIT II TRUST SERIES VS GUILLERMO DAKAY MONTALBAN ET AL.

Perhaps Plaintiff is concerned Defendants will challenge its right to foreclose, or perhaps Plaintiff is concerned that the fact that the original DOT was never recorded will cause issues with the foreclosure procedure or make it difficult to find a purchaser. Even so, these possibilities do not establish there is a present, concrete dispute between the parties. Affidavit as to Lost Document. Plaintiff submits this document to evidence that the DOT was lost and never recorded.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

IVAN K STEVENSON VS WAI CHING SHILON 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. If a nonparty disobeys a depo subpoena, the subpoenaing party may seek a court order compelling the nonparty to comply with the subpoena within 60 days after completion of the deposition record. CCP §2025.480(b); see Unzipped Apparel, LLC v. Bader (2007) 156 Cal. App. 4th 123, 127.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

NICOLE MAYS VS MORTGAGE MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS, INC., ET AL.

A challenge to the foreclosure can only occur against non-bona fide purchasers. (6 Angels, Inc. v. Stuart-Wright Mortgage, Inc. (2001) 85 Cal.App.4th 1279, 1286 ["Thus, once a deed reciting that all legal requirements have been satisfied has been transferred to a buyer at a foreclosure sale, the sale can be successfully attacked on the grounds of procedural irregularity only if the buyer is not a bona fide purchaser”].)

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

PAULA SALVADOR VS GHEORGHE FIRESCU, ET AL.

The Court notes that neither of the Firescus challenges the physical descriptions given of them, nor do the Firescus challenge the fact that their business is located at the Arminta Address. Furthermore, neither Mr. Firescu nor Mrs. Firescu offer any evidence that undermines any aspect of Mr. Abramyan’s testimony. Mr. and Mrs. Firescu do not offer an explanation for why they could not have been at the Arminta Address on October 21, 2019, at 9:38 a.m., nor do Mr. and Mrs.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

RAMIREZ VS. MID-WEST FABRICATING COMPANY

On page 2, it states that the Settlement Administrator will “determine the validity of my challenge” and does not indicate that the Court reserves jurisdiction to resolve any individual payment disputes. As to the Proposed Order 14. The proposed order is to be revised consistent with the issues addressed above. 15. The Settlement Agreement, any amendment(s) thereto, and exact copies of the completed exhibits thereto must be attached to the proposed order as exhibits.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 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.