What is a Peremptory Challenge (CCP 170.6)?

Useful Rulings on Peremptory Challenge - CCP 170.6

Rulings on Peremptory Challenge - CCP 170.6

1-25 of 10000 results

ROBERT SCOTT SHTOFMAN VS JULIE C LIM ET AL

Here, the peremptory challenge to Judge Sotelo contains no such evidence, in that Julie C. Lim submitted no evidence – or even argument – of this kind in support of the peremptory challenge she filed. Thus, under the authority cited above, Judge Sotelo should not have accepted this second defense-side CCP § 170.6 peremptory challenge but instead should have struck it.

  • Hearing

    Aug 18, 2016

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ROSEN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. VS RICHARD MERUELO

The Court finds that Petitioner is essentially seeking review of the Court’s granting of the peremptory challenge that was filed by Respondent in the Rosen Action, was accepted by the Court, and wants this Court to reverse its acceptance of such peremptory challenge. Petitioner is seeking to “strike” Respondent’s peremptory challenge as to Judge Fahey.

  • Hearing

    Dec 26, 2019

SHASHIKANT JOGANI VS HARESH JOGANI ET AL

Ross In Support of Peremptory Challenge to Judicial Officer [CCP §170.6(a)(2)]” in BC290553. The parties filed the Peremptory Challenge to Judicial Officer, LASC form LACIV 015, on July 6, 2020. On July 10, 2020, Judge Mooney accepted the challenge noting it was “timely based upon the Remittitur dated May 7, 2020 and the reassignment date of June 25, 2020.” On July 20, 2020, Judge Barbara M. Scheper recused herself pursuant to CCP § 170.1.

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

LINDA SCHERMER, AS TRUSTEE OF THE MARITAL TRUST UNDER THE SCHERMER FAMILY TRUST, ET AL. VS HFL LAW GROUP, APC, ET AL.

On March 16, 2020, the Court of Appeal ruled that this Court erred in denying Plaintiff’s 170.6 challenge filed in the Secondary Case[2] and issued an alternative writ, directing this Court to: (1) vacate the order denying Plaintiff’s 170.6 peremptory challenge and thereafter enter a new and different order granting the 170.6 peremptory challenge as timely filed; or (2) in the alternative, show cause before the Court of Appeal, as to why the Court had not done so and why a peremptory writ of mandate should not

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2020

LINTZ VS. DOHR (NEIL SHAPIRO, SPECIAL TRUSTEE)

Plaintiff Neil Shapiro as Special Trustee of the Robert H Lintz Living Trust UDT February 26, 1988's Motion to Strike Peremptory Challenge of Defendant and Cross-Complainants The motion of Plaintiff Neil Shapiro as Special Trustee of the Robert H. Lintz Living Trust UDT February 26, 1988 to strike the 05/25/17 “Peremptory Challenge Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 170.6” is DENIED. Plaintiff argues that the Peremptory Challenge was untimely filed. The Court disagrees.

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2017

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

The Court finds that Petitioner is essentially seeking review of the Court’s granting of the peremptory challenge that was filed by Respondent in the Rosen Action, was accepted by the Court, and wants this Court to reverse its acceptance of such peremptory challenge. Petitioner is seeking to “strike” Respondent’s peremptory challenge as to Judge Fahey.

  • Hearing

    Dec 26, 2019

LP KILTS LLC VS 1851 SLAUSON LLC ET AL

Pursuant to CCP § 170.6, Mr. Popal had 15 days in which to exercise his peremptory challenge. The peremptory challenge was not filed until March 13, 2018, which is 28 days after service. The Peremptory Challenged pursuant to CCP § 170.6 is DENIED as untimely.

  • Hearing

    Mar 26, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

PACHECO, ET AL. V. SAPUTO DAIRY FOODS USA LLC, ET AL.

Coffee’s peremptory challenge under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6 was filed on February 23, 2018. Accordingly, the challenge was filed within 15 days of the filing of the amended complaint. No prior judicial challenge has been filed in this action. The court rejected the challenge as untimely because it was not filed within 15 days of the original complaint and because only one challenge is permitted per side to an action. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 170.6(a)(2), 170.6(a)(4).)

  • Hearing

    Apr 16, 2018

LEENA HANNONEN, TRUSTEE FOR THE HANNONEN REVOCABLE FAMILY TRUST VS. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE RELATING TO CHEVY CHASE FUNDING LLC

On January 29, 2019, Hannonen filed a peremptory challenge which was denied as untimely. ROA # 23. On February 1, 2019, Hannonen filed a "Motion for Peremptory Challenge Based Upon Displayed Bias" pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6. The motion is addressed to Presiding Judge Peter Deddeh but was filed with this Court. To the extent the motion is properly before this Court, it is denied. A party may file only one peremptory challenge in an action. Code Civ. Proc., § 170.6, subd. (a)(4).

  • Hearing

    May 16, 2019

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

THEODOSIOS ROUSSOS VS DAVID KAPLAN, ET AL.

On June 24, 2019, Ted filed a Peremptory Challenge to Judge Landin under CCP §170.6 in the related case 19STCV19139. On June 28, 2019, Harry Roussos (“Harry”) and Christine Roussos (“Christine”) filed the instant Motion to Strike Ted’s Peremptory Challenge. The Court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers and rules as follows. Standard Code of Civ. Proc.

  • Hearing

    Jul 25, 2019

MARIE ROYCE ATONDO ET AL VS. BROWNING PROPERTIES, L.L.C. ET AL (PLTFS CHALLENGE JUDGE QUIDACHAY)

MOTION FOR PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE, PER 170.6 C.C.P. TO JUDGE Ronald e. quidachay Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for Friday, January 22, 2016, line 7. PLAINTIFFS MARIE ATONDO amd ANTHONY ATONDO's MOTION FOR PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE, PER 170.6 C.C.P. TO JUDGE Ronald e. quidachay OFF CALENDAR, moot. CCP 170.6 challenge has been accepted on January 14, 2016. = (501/REQ)

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2016

HARRY ROUSSOS ET AL VS THEODOSIOS ROUSSOS ET AL

On June 24, 2019, Ted filed a Peremptory Challenge to Judge Landin under CCP §170.6 in the related case 19STCV19139. On June 28, 2019, Harry Roussos (“Harry”) and Christine Roussos (“Christine”) filed the instant Motion to Strike Ted’s Peremptory Challenge. The Court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers and rules as follows. Standard Code of Civ. Proc.

  • Hearing

    Jul 25, 2019

PEACHES NONG JENSEN ET AL VS CHARON SOLUTIONS INC ET AL

Defendants Charon Solutions Inc. and Perry Leonard Segal oppose, asserting that the CCP § 170.6 peremptory challenge to Judge White was timely and was accepted as timely, and that Ms.

  • Hearing

    Aug 23, 2018

JOSE DAVID GUEVARA VS. OSCAR E ZAVALETA

MOTION FOR PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE, PER 170.6 C.C.P. TO JUDGE HONORABLE RONALD E QUIDACHAY Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for October 13, 2017 line 5. DEFENDANT OSCAR ZAVALETA's MOTION FOR PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE, PER 170.6 C.C.P. TO JUDGE HONORABLE RONALD E QUIDACHAY OFF CALENDAR. CCP 170.6 challenge accepted on October 10, 2017. = (501/REQ)

  • Hearing

    Oct 13, 2017

MARION L STARR VS. AGNES C KOSEL ET AL

MOTION FOR PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE, PER 170.6 C.C.P. TO JUDGE RONALD E. QUIDACHAY Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for Tuesday, October 24, 2017, Line 3. DEFENDANT AGNES KOZEL'S MOTION FOR PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE, PER 170.6 C.C.P. TO JUDGE RONALD E. QUIDACHAY. OFF CALENDAR. CCP 170.6 Challenge to the Honorable Ronald Evans Quidachay accepted on October 2, 2017. =(501/REQ)

  • Hearing

    Oct 24, 2017

RAYMOND BAEZ VS SOUTH WEST LAW CENTER, ET AL

On July 24, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for peremptory challenge pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6. Discussion – Motion for Peremptory Challenge – A judge may be disqualified by filing an affidavit (usually a declaration) known as a “peremptory challenge” in any hearing involving a “contested issue of law or fact.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 170.6, subd. (a)(1).)

  • Hearing

    Aug 13, 2019

ANTRANIK KEVORKIAN VS LISA ANN HASTINGS

BC626405 ANTRANIK KEVORKIAN v LISA ANN HASTINGS Motion – Request for Peremptory Challenge to Judicial Officer -170.6 CCP section 170.6 requires a challenge to an all purpose civil assignment to be made within 15 days of notice of the assignment. This case, BC626405, was transferred to this department on December 16, 2016 at a hearing at which the Plaintiff was present. Further, the clerk of the court mailed a copy of the order on the same date, December 16, 2016.

  • Hearing

    Feb 17, 2017

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

SANTA BARBARA OLIVE COMPANY, INC. V. CATHY LATOU, ET AL.

Therefore, any peremptory disqualification pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sec. 170.6 should have been filed within ten days. The parties appeared before Judge Eskin on Monday, February 22, 2010, after the expiration of the statutory time within which a peremptory challenge could be filed.

  • Hearing

    Mar 15, 2010

SHASHIKANT JOGANI VS HARESH JOGANI ET AL

Section 170.6 Peremptory Challenge, Vacate this Court’s Order Reassigning the Matter to Department 58, and Reassign this Case BC290553 (Along with Related Case BC564146) Back to Department 68” is GRANTED. The court reconsiders Judge Mooney’s February 6, 2020 ruling and the February 2, 2020 CCP § 170.6 challenge filed by Shailesh Jogani in BC290553 is denied as untimely.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

MICHAEL HOOVER ET AL VS. AC AND S, INC ET AL

MOTION FOR PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE, PER 170.6 C.C.P. TO JUDGE hon. ronald e. quidachay DEFENDANT SUPRO CORPORATION MOTION FOR PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE, PER 170.6 C.C.P. TO JUDGE hon. ronald e. quidachay MOOT. MATTER HEARD BY JUDGE BUSCH (302/JUDGE BUSCH))

  • Hearing

    Feb 18, 2005

TRALEE MAMAGEMENT LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED VS. RYAN FLAGG ET AL

MOTION FOR PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE, PER 170.6 C.C.P. TO JUDGE THE HONORABLE JAMES L. WARREN MATTER IS SET FOR HEARING ON JUNE 2, 2006. DEFENDANT MARNI ARENDTS' MOTION FOR PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE, PER 170.6 C.C.P. TO JUDGE THE HONORABLE JAMES L. WARREN. HEARING REQUIRED. = (302/REQ/HE)

  • Hearing

    Jun 02, 2006

LYLE HUGHES VS. UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION ET AL

MOTION FOR PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE, PER 170.6 C.C.P. TO JUDGE busch Set for hearing on Friday, February 5, 2010, LINE 16, PLAINTIFF LYLE HUGHES MOTION FOR PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE, PER 170.6 C.C.P. TO JUDGE BUSCH. GRANTED. =(302/CWW)

  • Hearing

    Feb 05, 2010

MICHEL EWING VS VINCE POPPEN

Petitioners' argument that the right is eliminated even if the motion is procedurally flawed makes the peremptory challenge illusionary." Truck Ins. Exchange v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 142, 148 The Court observes that CCP §170.6 is to be liberally construed.

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2015

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

LAWRENCE KING ET AL VS. AC AND S,INC. ET AL

MOTION FOR PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE, PER 170.6 C.C.P. TO JUDGE Honorable Paul Alvarado SET FOR HEARING ON THURSDAY, JULY 03, 2008 LINE 3. DEFENDANT TENNECO AUTOMOTIVE OPERATING COMPANY INC.'S MOTION FOR PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE, PER 170.6 C.C.P. TO JUDGE Honorable Paul Alvarado IS OFF CALENDAR, NO MOTION REQUIRED. =(302/PJM)

  • Hearing

    Jul 03, 2008

EMERY JESSEN VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BHC)AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS ET AL

MOTION FOR PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE, PER 170.6 C.C.P. TO JUDGE HONORABLE RONALD E. QUIDACHAY SET FOR HEARING ON MAY 23, 2006 DEFENDANT PNEUMO ABEX CORPORATION, PNEUMO ABEX, LLC MOTION FOR PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE, PER 170.6 C.C.P. TO JUDGE HONORABLE RONALD E. QUIDACHAY IS OFF CALENDAR, DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANT APRIL 24, 2006. =(302/REQ)

  • Hearing

    May 23, 2006

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.