What is a peremptory challenge - jury selection?

A peremptory challenge for jury section allows a party to reject a certain number of potential jurors without stating a reason. During trial jury selection in civil cases, “each party shall be entitled to six peremptory challenges.” Code Civ. Proc., § 231(c).

“A party shall not use a peremptory challenge to remove a prospective juror on the basis of an assumption that the prospective juror is biased merely because of a characteristic listed or defined in Section 11135 of the Government Code, or similar grounds.” Code Civ. Proc., § 231.5.

“Peremptory challenges shall be taken or passed by the sides alternately, commencing with the plaintiff or people, and each party shall be entitled to have the panel full before exercising any peremptory challenge. When each side passes consecutively, the jury shall then be sworn, unless the court, for good cause, shall otherwise order. The number of peremptory challenges remaining with a side shall not be diminished by any passing of a peremptory challenge.” Code Civ. Proc., § 231(d).

“If there are more than two parties, the court shall, for the purpose of allotting peremptory challenges, divide the parties into two or more sides according to their respective interests in the issues. Each side shall be entitled to eight peremptory challenges. If there are several parties on a side, the court shall divide the challenges among them as nearly equally as possible. If there are more than two sides, the court shall grant such additional peremptory challenges to a side as the interests of justice may require, provided that the peremptory challenges of one side shall not exceed the aggregate number of peremptory challenges of all other sides. If any party on a side does not use his or her full share of peremptory challenges, the unused challenges may be used by the other party or parties on the same side.” Code Civ. Proc., § 231(c).

Useful Rulings on Peremptory Challenge - Jury Selection

Recent Rulings on Peremptory Challenge - Jury Selection

1-25 of 10000 results

THE CITIES OF DUARTE VS STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD AND CITY OF GARDENA VS REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD

The peremptory writ further commands that Respondents shall reconsider the Permit in light of the decision of this Court dated April 18, 2019. 3. Nothing in this judgment or the writ shall limit or control in any way the discretion legally vested in Respondents. 4. Petitioners shall recover their costs in this proceeding in the amount of $_____.

  • Hearing

    Jun 20, 2021

HOMAYOUN LARIAN VS EDWARD CZUKER, ET AL.

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. (See Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994 [in ruling on a demurrer, a court may not consider declarations, matters not subject to judicial notice, or documents not accepted for the truth of their contents].)

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

MED CAFE CORP, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS MOSTAFA KARIMBEIK, ET AL.

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. (See Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994 [in ruling on a demurrer, a court may not consider declarations, matters not subject to judicial notice, or documents not accepted for the truth of their contents].)

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ANNE SHOYKHET, ET AL. VS NATHALIE DUBOIS, ET AL.

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. (See Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994 [in ruling on a demurrer, a court may not consider declarations, matters not subject to judicial notice, or documents not accepted for the truth of their contents].)

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

HAGOP TCHAKERIAN VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

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. (See Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994 [in ruling on a demurrer, a court may not consider declarations, matters not subject to judicial notice, or documents not accepted for the truth of their contents].)

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

MARSHA A. JOHNSON VS BOARD OF REGISTERED NURSES

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. (See Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994 [in ruling on a demurrer, a court may not consider declarations, matters not subject to judicial notice, or documents not accepted for the truth of their contents].)

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2020

KOUROSH IZADPANAHI VS MARIA ALMA YOLANDA IBARRA DABDOUB, ET AL.

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. (See Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994 [in ruling on a demurrer, a court may not consider declarations, matters not subject to judicial notice, or documents not accepted for the truth of their contents].)

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2020

NINA MARIE JOHNSON VS IAN PATTON, ET AL.

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. (See Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994 [in ruling on a demurrer, a court may not consider declarations, matters not subject to judicial notice, or documents not accepted for the truth of their contents].)

  • Hearing

    Jul 24, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

EAST COAST FOODS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS THELMA WEAVER, ET AL.

Because both Defendants challenge identical subpoena requests, the Court has consolidated its analysis into a single discussion. At issue are the following subpoena requests: · All of YOUR banking records or DOCUMENTS related to [Defendant], including, but not limited to, monthly statements, cancelled check copies, deposit slips, account opening documents.

  • Hearing

    Jul 22, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

IN THE MATTER OF TIMOTHY WILLIAMS

The petitioner is obligated to lay out the evidence favorable to the other side and show why it is lacking, and the "[f]ailure to do so is fatal" to any substantial evidence challenge and "is deemed a concession that the evidence supports the findings." Defend the Bay v. City of Irvine, (2004) 11928 Cal.App.4th 1261, 1266. The reviewing court should "not independently review the record to make up for appellant's failure to carry his burden." Ibid. c.

  • Hearing

    Jul 16, 2020

RUTH XIAOYU ZHANG VS NESTOR H. LLERNA

The motion, moreover, is unopposed; as such, there has been no challenge as to the number of hours expended on the appeal. The court will reduce the 10.5 hours counsel seeks in connection with the preparation and hearing of the instant motion, however, to 6 hours, in light of the fact that no reply needed to be prepared. Accordingly, the court will award fees in the reduced amount of $18,617.50. Costs Plaintiff’s request for costs is separately addressed via the memorandum of costs procedure.

  • Hearing

    Jul 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

GRACE ALBA, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM, SYLVIA ALBA VS SPARKLETTS, INC., A CORPORATION, ET AL.

Within three (3) calendar days after such a challenge has been made, the Designating Party shall substantiate the basis for such designation in writing to the other Party. The Parties shall first attempt to resolve such challenge in good faith on an informal basis.

  • Hearing

    Jul 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

SUNG K LEE VS HYUN CHUL KANG, ET AL.

It is doubtful that Defendants have standing to challenge the validity of the marriage or that the validity of the marriage can be challenged after a spouse’s debt. Nonetheless, while Defendants question the validity of the marriage, there is no evidence presented at this time showing the marriage is void and therefore no basis to deny the motion. Defendants’ proffered evidence does not appear to address the time period of the marriage itself.

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

JEFFREY FRASCO, ET AL. VS DOMAEN LTD., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

The Domaen Defendants do not challenge the validity or existence of the arbitration agreement relied upon Plaintiffs. The Domaen Defendants do not oppose this motion and Plaintiffs’ counsel declares that counsel for these defendants agreed to arbitration on behalf of her clients. (Shakouri Decl., ¶ 8.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

SUREN SAHAKYAN VS LOS ANGELES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, RESPONDENT, ET AL.

LAWA did not challenge the medical documentation and provided no basis to question it at the time of the hearing. LAWA failed to satisfy its burden of proof for Charge 6. AR 888. (vii) Charge 7: Using City Equipment Without Authorization LAWA claims that, after receiving the Copier NTCD, Sahakyan continued to use the copier for improper purposes. AR 888. LAWA failed to prove this charge at the hearing. AR 888.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

LAURA JOANNE MEADOWS VS PLANET HOME LENDING, LLC, ET AL.

The court will not attempt to repeat every contention, but there were numerous assignments to trustees which Plaintiffs appear to challenge as invalid. There are allegations of deficiency of notices. Plaintiffs allege they were offered a loan modification but declined it (“Notably, while PHL granted Plaintiffs with a loan payment plan, PHL required a down payment of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00), which Plaintiffs could not afford”).

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Foreclosure

ANTONIO JOSEPH GARCIA VS JEAN SHIOMOTO

Respondent does not otherwise challenge any hours requested by Petitioners in the fee motion. (See Oppo. 15-16.) The court notes that “Respondent never informed Petitioners that it had conducted the October 31, 2018 training; and, Petitioners were unaware of the above described emails and training until Sammartino’s deposition” in August 2019. (Maddox Decl. ¶ 30.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

GIBBONS V. THESLOF

Fifth Cause of Action (Breach of Written Contract against MHC, Gene Theslof, and Tyler Theslof): Defendants challenge the fourth cause of action of pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivision (e). The court OVERRULES the Demurrer to the fifth cause of action for the same reasons as the fourth cause of action.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

R. MORGAN HOLLAND V. COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO

Petitioners, however, do not challenge the application of that exemption in this writ proceeding. 2. Petitioners Exhausted Their Administrative Remedies As an initial matter, the Court finds that Petitioners exhausted their administrative remedies with respect to questioning the County’s application of the Class 1 exemption.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

LOUIS LOZANO, ET AL. VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, A MUNICPAL CORPORATION AND CHARTER CITY WITHIN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.

Rather, Petitioners challenge the BOR’s evidentiary ruling based on the following argument: “Los Angeles City Charter Section 571(b)(1) gives the Commission the power to ‘issue instructions to the Chief of Police concerning the exercise of the authority conferred on the Chief of Police by the Charter, other than the disciplinary authority conferred by Section 1070.’

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

KRISTOPHER FAGAN VS JUSTIN HILL, 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

    Jul 14, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

GEORGE LACAYO VS IRONWOOD VELVET, LLC, ET AL.

This provision is often invoked to challenge pleadings filed in violation of a deadline, court order, or requirement of prior leave of court. (Ferraro v. Camarlinghi (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 509, 528.) In the instant matter, Plaintiff was ordered to file an amended pleading within 20 days of sustaining Defendant Ironwood’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s original complaint. (Pearl Decl., Exh. 1.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

  • Judge

    Paul A. Bacigalupo or Virginia Keeny

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

VADIM MIESEGAES V. WILLIAM AUSTIN, 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 subject to judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.30(a).) A demurrer tests only the legal sufficiency of the pleading, and “[t]he facts alleged in the pleading are deemed to be true, however improbable they may be. [citation].” (Berg & Berg Enterprises, LLC v. Boyle (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 1020, 1034.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

LUIS CRUZ VS CIVIL SERVICES COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF LA

On January 30, 2019, this Court issued an Interlocutory Order, which stated in part as follows: The Petition for Peremptory Writ of Mandate and for Extraordinary Relief is granted in part as follows: 1. The weight of the evidence supports the factual findings of the Hearing Officer with the exception of Finding of Fact No. 8. The weight of the evidence does not support Finding of Fact No. 8 regarding a struggle in the car. 2.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

PEREYRA VS DESERT OPHTHALMOLOGY

Second, the court should reject plaintiff’s challenge to the travel costs for deposition. Travel expenses to attend a deposition are an allowable cost under Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5(c)(1).

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

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 gather your results.