What is a Peremptory Challenge (CCP 170.6)?

Useful Rulings on Peremptory Challenge - CCP 170.6

Recent Rulings on Peremptory Challenge - CCP 170.6

201-225 of 10000 results

JESSY VELASQUEZ, ET AL. VS A&S PROPERTIES CORPORATION

If any defendant intends to file a pleading challenge to the amended complaint, defendant must lodge directly in Dept. 73 the red-line copy of the amended complaint with its demurrer. DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER: If plaintiffs do not intend to amend, defendants’ answer is ordered to be filed and served within 15 days after service of plaintiffs’ written notice thereof.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

RICARDO MARTINEZ VS UMESH C. PATEL, 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. 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 39 Cal.3d 311 (1985).

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

BRADLEY STONE ET AL VS PALOS VERDES FAMILY AND IMMEDIATE MED

In addition, the issue of whether the proposed newly amended pleading states sufficient facts to constitute a defense is generally left for the proper procedural mechanism to challenge the pleading. “[T]he preferable practice would be to permit the amendment and allow the parties to test its legal sufficiency by demurrer, motion for judgment on the pleadings or other appropriate proceedings.” Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048.

  • Hearing

ERIC BUCHS VS BOOT BARN, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.

Rather, like the plaintiff in Baltazar, “[plaintiff’s] challenge concerns only matters that were clearly delineated in the agreement [] signed. [Defendant’s] failure to attach the AAA rules therefore does not affect our consideration of [plaintiff] claims of substantive unconscionability.” (Baltazar, supra, 62 Cal.4th at p. 1246.) The Court concludes that Defendants’ failure to directly attach a copy of the applicable JAMS rules does not amount to procedural unconscionability.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

JANE MS DOE VS PROACTIVE MEDICAL STAFFING, INC., ET AL.

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.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

MARIA GONZALEZ VS TYSON FOODS, INC., A CORPORATION, ET AL.

Motions to strike are used to challenge defects in the pleadings not subject to demurrer. (Ferraro v. Camarlinghi (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 509, 529 [recognizing that an objection that the complaint failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action is ground for a general demurrer, not a motion to strike.].) 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, subd. (b)(1).)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

RONALD PATTERSON VS SCOTT KERNAN

Petitioner’s Facial Challenge to a CDCR Regulation Petitioner Lacks Standing to Challenge Section 3491(a) and (b)(2) In the FAP, Petitioner challenges a part of section 3491 of CDCR’s emergency regulations. (See FAP 1, discussing 15 CCR § 3491(a), (b)(2).)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

MARVIN TARNOL, ET AL. VS UNITED FABRICARE SUPPLY, INC.

California courts have held that a motion to quash may be an appropriate vehicle for a defendant to challenge a plaintiff’s attempt to substitute a defendant for a fictitiously named defendant. (See, e.g., McClatchy v. Coblentz, Patch, Duffy & Bass, LLP (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 368, 375.) “If the terms of ... section 474 have not been complied with, the purported defendant has not been named as such in the complaint.

  • Hearing

PROFESSIONAL PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, ET AL. VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.

“By peremptory writ of mandate, the city officials, and in particular the members of the public utilities commission, the secretary of the civil service commission, and the controller, were directed to certify and approve payrolls and timerolls setting forth the petitioners' right to receive the amounts to which each is entitled and to pay those amounts.” (Id. at 194.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

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

ROCIO SABBAH ARIELLA SABBAH ET AL VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Plaintiff filed a preemptory challenge on April 6, 2020, and the case was assigned to Department 49. RULING: Denied, in part, and denied, without prejudice, in part. Plaintiffs moves to compel further responses to five disputed deposition questions. The deponent is Los Angeles County Sheriff deputy Jason McGee. Deputy McGee was the driver of one of the vehicles that collided with the Sabah automobile.

  • Hearing

HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF SANTA BARBARA V. ADAM CHAPMAN, ET AL.

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

HOUDA ASSALY VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

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.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

PATRICK SHEPHERD VS RELIABLE LIQUID TRANSPORT, INC., ET AL.

A demurrer can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack or from matters that are judicially noticeable. (CCP § 430.30(a); see Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) Discussion Defendants demur to the second, fourth, sixth, and ninth causes of action alleged against them on grounds of failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for harassment. These causes of action are: (2) Racial Harassment. (Govt.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

CANDY LOPEZ VS UNITED PARCEL SERVICE INC ET AL

Discussion 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

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

JOSE GUADALUPE TREJO CHAVEZ, ET AL. VS CAMACHO AUTO SALES INC.

Discussion 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

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

JOSE GUADALUPE TREJO CHAVEZ, ET AL. VS CAMACHO AUTO SALES INC.

Discussion 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

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

SETH MAZIED ET AL. VS VAN GUDMUNDSON ET AL.

“A demurrer is a pleading used to challenge the legal sufficiency of an opponent's pleading based on defects that appear either on the face of the pleading under attack or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable.” (County of Fresno v. Shelton (1998) 66 Cal. App. 4th 996, 1008–09, as modified (Sept. 22, 1998). See also Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 430.30(a) [“Objections by demurrer and answer”].)

  • Hearing

HEYMAN VS THE RESORT AT PELICAN HILL LLC

Where the entire contract at issue is an arbitration agreement, “a party’s challenge to the arbitration agreement does not invalidate the delegation clause, and therefore the arbitrator, and not a court, must consider any challenge to the arbitration agreement as a whole.” (Tiri v. Lucky Chances, Inc. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 231, 240, articulating the rule established by the United States Supreme Court in Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson (2010) 561 U.S. 63,72).

  • Hearing

HEYMAN VS THE RESORT AT PELICAN HILL LLC

Where the entire contract at issue is an arbitration agreement, “a party’s challenge to the arbitration agreement does not invalidate the delegation clause, and therefore the arbitrator, and not a court, must consider any challenge to the arbitration agreement as a whole.” (Tiri v. Lucky Chances, Inc. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 231, 240, articulating the rule established by the United States Supreme Court in Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson (2010) 561 U.S. 63,72).

  • Hearing

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS DIVISION OF OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH VS. CALIFORNIA OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH APPEALS BOARD

Respondent found, “Employer failed to raise any such defense (or any reasonable corollary) in its pleadings, waiving any such challenge.” In support of this assertion, Respondent cites to California Erectors Bay Area, Cal/OSHA App. 93-503, DAR (Jul. 31, 1998). In California Erectors Bay Area, the employer argued that “no statute or regulation requires an employer to notify the Division before raising an affirmative defense.

  • Hearing

SHAILESH SHAH VS. DENTAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA

Shah did not challenge that decision. The Second Petition for Reinstatement In July 2017, Shah filed a second petition for reinstatement of his license – and this is the petition that is at issue here. (Fact 12.) An evidentiary hearing was held on March 21, 2019. Five people testified: Shah; his wife; Pratima Sheth, a friend of the Shah family; Dr. William Nelson, a clinical psychologist who examined Shah; and Caroline Montgomery, the Board’s Investigator.

  • Hearing

DOSKOCZ VS. ALS

HEARING ON MOTION TO/FOR QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS FILED BY SANDRA GOTTLIEB, DAVID SWEDELSON, SWEDELSON GOTTLIEB * TENTATIVE RULING: * Plaintiffs timely filed a disqualification of Judge Treat under Code of Civil Procedure § 170.6. (The disqualification was apparently not noticed or acted on before now because it was electronically filed.) The case is therefore referred to the Supervising Judge for reassignment. This motion will be recalendared by the assigned Department.

  • Hearing

SENIOR CARE PHARMACY SERVICES, INC. VS. CALIFORNIA BOARD OF PHARMACY

If the California Board of Pharmacy decides to discipline defendants, they may challenge the discipline through the proper procedures. This pre-emptive strike, however, is legally unwarranted. Defendants are ordered to give notice of the ruling unless notice is waived.

  • Hearing

MCCHRISTIAN VS MUFG UNION BANK NA

Further, by failing to oppose the motion, defendant has failed to preserve for appeal a challenge to the granting of the motion. In re Carrie W., 110 Cal.App.4th 746, 755 (2003); Broden v. Marin Humane Society, 70 Cal.App.4th 1212, 1226-1227, fn. 13 (1999); see also Duarte v. Chino Comm. Hospital, 72 Cal. App. 4th 849, 856 (1999); Badie v. Bank of America, 67 Cal. App. 4th 779, 784-85 (1998).

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

  « 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.