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

RIDGEROCK TOOLS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS BERGAMON, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, 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

    Dec 03, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

DANIEL AVILA VS SMG TAVERNS, INC. DBA IGUANA KELLEY'S

It is not the function of the demurrer to challenge the truthfulness of the complaint; and for purposes of the ruling on the demurrer, all facts pleaded in the complaint are assumed to be true. (Donabedian, 116 Cal.App.4th at 994.) 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; Donabedian, supra, 116 Cal.App.4th at 994.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

PATRICK RILEY VS JORDAN SCHUST

Because the court is not yet certain that any amendment will be futile and this is the first challenge to the complaint, leave to amend is granted.

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2020

RODRIGUES VS WOODSON

The court said it agreed with plaintiff that a passenger riding in a boat simply is not engaged in the type of activity that the Knight court intended to reach with the doctrine of primary assumption of risk (Id. at 796), that being a passenger in a boat under the circumstances there was “too benign to be subject to Knight,” and that the boat was not being used to enhance the challenge of a sport but merely as “a pleasurable means of transportation.

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2020

CHERYL MAISEL VS COUNTRY GLEN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. A CALIFORNIA NON-PROFIT CORPORATION, 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

    Dec 02, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

CHERYL MAISEL VS COUNTRY GLEN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. A CALIFORNIA NON-PROFIT CORPORATION, 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

    Dec 02, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

BARBARA FISTANIC VS ABIGAIL MEMBRENO

It is not the function of the demurrer to challenge the truthfulness of the complaint; and for purposes of the ruling on the demurrer, all facts pleaded in the complaint are assumed to be true. (Donabedian, 116 Cal.App.4th at 994.) 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; Donabedian, supra, 116 Cal.App.4th at 994.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2020

CALIFORNIA DUI LAWYERS ASSN ET AL VS CALIFORNIA DEPT OF MOTO

The remaining costs that have not been withdrawn by Plaintiffs, and that Defendants challenge, are not explicitly authorized or prohibited by Code Civ. Proc. § 1033.5. The Court denies such costs exercising its discretion under Code Civ. Proc. § 1033.5(c)(4). Plaintiffs provide no admissible evidence that it was reasonably necessary to use their chosen delivery methods or an attorney service.

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

DELLING THOMAS VS STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.

It is not the function of the demurrer to challenge the truthfulness of the complaint; and for purposes of the ruling on the demurrer, all facts pleaded in the complaint are assumed to be true. (Donabedian, 116 Cal.App.4th at 994.) 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; Donabedian, supra, 116 Cal.App.4th at 994.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2020

MARGARET A DELIS ET AL VS MONTECITO FINANCIAL SERVICES INC E

In particular, Moving Defendants challenge the element of “reasonable” reliance. It is hornbook law that fraud-based claims are subject to a stricter pleading standard then that governing most California causes of action. To advance a cognizable fraud claim, "every element of the cause of action . . . must be alleged in full, factually and specifically, and the policy of liberal construction of pleading will not usually be invoked to sustain a fraud claim deficient in any material respect." (Wilhelm v.

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

LIANNA NIKOLAYEVA VS ARMOND AGHAKHANI, D.D.S., ET AL.

It follows that no reasonable juror could find Defendant Radan owed a duty of care to Plaintiff, breached a duty of care owed to Plaintiff, or caused Plaintiff’s injuries. The burden shifts to Plaintiff. Plaintiff has not submitted evidence showing a triable issue of material fact exists. Thus, summary judgment is properly granted in Defendant Radan’s favor and against Plaintiff. CONCLUSION The motion is GRANTED. Defendant Radan is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

PATRICIA DENNISON VS BAHRAM EGHBALI, ET AL.

Plaintiff alleges assault and battery against Defendant Eghbali earlier in the complaint (¶¶ 13, 16-19, 21-24), and he does not challenge those causes of action. Accordingly, the demurrer to the third cause of action for elder abuse is OVERRULED.

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2020

ALLEN BENNETT, ET AL. VS FCA US, LLC, ET AL.

Motions to strike are used to challenge defects in the pleadings not subject to demurrer. Ferraro v. Camarlinghi, 161 Cal. App. 4th 509, 529 (2008). 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(b)(1). The allegations of a complaint “must be liberally construed, with a view to substantial justice between the parties.” Code Civ. Proc. § 452.

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2020

EDPO LLC DBA EXPO PROPANE FKA EXPO PROPANE, INC. VS DESTINATION SHUTTLE SERVICES, LLC, ET AL.

In this instance, a demurrer is not appropriate to challenge the prayer for relief as it only constitutes a portion of a cause of action. (See PH II, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1680, 1682-83 [“A demurrer does not lie to a portion of a cause of action.”].) “The appropriate remedy for challenging a portion of a cause of action seeking an improper remedy is a motion to strike.” (Caliber Bodyworks, Inc. v. Superior Court (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 365, 385.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

SANTA BARBARA COALITION FOR RESPONSIBLE CANNABIS, INC. V. COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA, ET AL.

With respect to the scope of the third cause of action, all demurring parties argue that the statute of limitations has run as to a facial challenge to the adoption of the Uniform Rules. While Coalition addresses this issue as a hypothetical (“even if the statute of limitations on a facial challenge … has run”), Coalition presents no substantive argument that the statute of limitations does not bar a facial challenge. (Opposition, p. 8.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2020

NOVACOAST INC. V. SYMANTEC CORPORATION, ET AL.

Summary judgment is appropriate when no reasonable juror could find facts necessary for a plaintiff’s case and there are not equally conflicting inferences to be drawn from the evidence. Eddins v. Redstone, 134 Cal.App.4th 290, 328 (2005). “Summary judgment may not be granted where contradictory inferences may be drawn from the supporting declarations or affidavits.” Miller v. Bechtel Corp., 33 Cal.3d 868, 881 (1983); CCP § 473c(c).

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2020

OMNI TECHNICS V. CHAVEZ

Cross-Defendants challenge the second cause of action (Fraud) and the third cause of action (Negligent Misrepresentation) pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivisions (e) and (f). Cross-Defendants contend, “The second cause of action for fraud fails to meet the requirements for a proper pleading for same.” (Demurrer; 3:24-25.) Cross-Defendants also assert, “The third cause of action for fraud fails to meet the requirements for a proper pleading for same.” (Demurrer 5:18-19.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2020

FORTIS CAPITAL LENDING, INC. V. TITAN MUTUAL LENDING, INC.

Although Onvoi seeks to distinguish the foregoing cases on their facts, it does not challenge the general principles for which they stand. These cases compel the conclusion that the Fund's filing of an amended complaint rendered Onvoi's motion for summary adjudication moot.” (Italics in SCIF.) On 6-18-20 under ROA No. 107, Plaintiffs (Fortis Capital Lending, Inc. and JJ Zhang) filed a Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint.

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2020

SHAFFER V RICE RANCH COMMUNITY LLC

As noted above, a demurrer can be used to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable. (Blank, supra, 39 Cal.3d at p. 318.) Since the court has taken judicial notice of the date, it may be used to challenge the pleading. Plaintiffs assert that “facts show without question that Shea Homes made numerous and ongoing attempts to repair the construction defects at the Shaffers’ home.” (Opposition, p. 2, ll. 18-19.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2020

JENNIFER HERRINGTON V THE NATURE CONSERVANCY ET AL

On August 21, 2020, plaintiff filed a peremptory challenge against Judge Staffel. The case was thereafter assigned to this department by order dated August 26, 2020. On September 14, 2020, the court sustained defendants’ demurrer to the FAC with leave to amend, including the demurrer of TNC-CA based on plaintiff’s failure to adequately allege her status as an employee. The SAC was filed September 25, 2020. TNC-CA filed its demurrer to the SAC on October 28, 2020. Opposition has been filed.

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2020

DAVID LAHYANI VS ROBERT SCOTT REHLING ET AL

It is not the function of the demurrer to challenge the truthfulness of the complaint; and for purposes of the ruling on the demurrer, all facts pleaded in the complaint are assumed to be true. (Donabedian, 116 Cal.App.4th at 994.) 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; Donabedian, supra, 116 Cal.App.4th at 994.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2020

JINKUN CHA, ET AL. VS PACIFIC EXPRESSWAY, INC., A CORPORATION , ET AL.

It is not the function of the demurrer to challenge the truthfulness of the complaint; and for purposes of the ruling on the demurrer, all facts pleaded in the complaint are assumed to be true. (Donabedian, 116 Cal.App.4th at 994.) 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; Donabedian, supra, 116 Cal.App.4th at 994.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MARY JACK ET AL VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

Administrative Record (Item 16) Petitioners challenge the $1,347.34 claimed by the Commission claims as administrative record preparation cost. Petitioners note that they received a quote from the Commission stating that the estimated costs for preparation of the record was $2,334.69. Mot. at 3-4. Petitioners declined a second copy of the record, bringing the estimated cost to $1,794.68, which Petitioners paid. Seward Decl., Exs. A, B.

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

FERMIN PALACIOS, ET AL. VS JHKE, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, 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.) “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.

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

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.