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

ANGELA WATSON VS GILBERT A. CABOT

This provision is commonly invoked to challenge pleadings filed in violation of a deadline, court order, or requirement of prior leave of court. (Ferraro, supra, 161 Cal.App.4th at 528.) Defendants move to strike portions of the Third Amended Complaint pertaining to Plaintiff’s request for punitive damages and attorney’s fees, as well as: The words "professional Hollywood shyster" TAC ¶ 10 at 3:13; The words commencing "Specifically, on or about" through "and Mary Margaret Humes (Case No.

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

JINSONG SHI VS ALG LAWYERS INC., ET AL.

The only cause of action in plaintiff’s complaint that defendants do not challenge in this demurrer is the fourth cause of action for legal malpractice. First Cause of Action for Fraud The elements of fraud are (a) a misrepresentation (false representation, concealment, or nondisclosure); (b) knowledge of its falsity; (c) intent to induce reliance; (d) justifiable reliance; and (e) resulting damage. (Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 638.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

PISMO BEACH SELF-STORAGE, L.P. V. CITY OF PISMO BEACH, ET AL.

The first problem the Court has with Petitioner’s position is its attempt to challenge “conduct” by the City prior to its adoption of the Resolution. “Conduct” is a broad term, and the Court is unclear what specific conduct Petitioner seeks to challenge, inasmuch as its opening brief referenced two specific acts: the adoption of the Resolution, and the DIFs assessed under the Resolution. “Conduct,” on the other hand, can potentially mean a wide variety of activities.

  • Hearing

    Sep 26, 2020

STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND VS. RICARDO LARA IN HIS CAPACITY AS INSURANCE COMMISSIONER OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

On February 6, 2019, over a month prior to the expiration of the deadline to file a writ petition to challenge the A-Brite Decision, SCIF and the Insurance Commissioner entered into a settlement agreement. (Settlement Agreement). In the Settlement Agreement, SCIF agreed not to pursue a writ petition to challenge the A-Brite Decision. The Commissioner then issued an order rescinding the “precedential” designation. (FAP, ¶59.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

WAYNE J STEWART VS. CITY OF OJAI

A nonsettling defendant may then challenge the settlement by 'attempt[ing] to prove that the parties' assigned value is too low and that a greater reduction in plaintiff's claims against the remaining defendants is actually warranted.' [Citation.]" (Franklin Mint Co. v. Superior Court (Manatt, Phelps & Phillips) (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1550, 1559-1560, 31 Cal.Rptr.3d 319; see also Code of Civ. Proc., § 877.6(a)(2).

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

MCMAHON VS. HENDRICKS

Indeed, actionable defamations are usually made to people who can be described as having an interest in hearing them, rather than to people with zero interest in the topic altogether; it might be a serious challenge to establish any damages otherwise. If such an “interest” on the part of the audience were sufficient to invoke the “common interest privilege”, the practical result would come close to negating defamation torts entirely.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

OLSON, ET AL. V. CHEN, 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. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) No other extrinsic evidence can be considered (i.e., no “speaking demurrers”). (Ion Equip. Corp. v. Nelson (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 868, 881 [error for court to consider facts asserted in memorandum supporting demurrer].) Furthermore, the Agreement does not require dismissal.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

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

    Sep 25, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

THE MORTGAGE LAW FIRM, PLC VS ALL CLAIMANTS TO SURPLUS PROCEEDS AFTER THE TRUSTEE'S SALE OF THE REAL PROPERTY

However, there is no apparent challenge to the amount being sought pursuant to the claimed recorded liens, in the sum of $52,900.28 (as of December 20, 2019), as reflected in the Certificate of Tax Due and Delinquency, Exhibit A to the Amended Claim to Surplus Funds submitted by the Franchise Tax Board.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

MARIYAM KARAPETYAN, ET AL. VS AZMI W ATIYA, ET AL.

This thirty-five year career in surgery of the heart is more than sufficient to have a specialized set of opinions on the appropriateness and adequacy of surgery on the heart that would aid a juror. The Court finds the opinions of Plaintiffs Osanna Kosoyan and Anna Mkrtchyan are immaterial. Plaintiffs attempt to show there is a triable issue of material fact regarding whether the bypass surgery should have been performed, the risks were appropriately consented to, and a blood thinner was prescribed.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

GARG V. GARG, ET AL.

“A demurrer is not the appropriate vehicle to challenge a portion of a cause of action demanding an improper remedy.” (Caliber Bodyworks, Inc. v. Superior Court (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 365, 384, disapproved on other grounds in ZB, N.A. v. Superior Court (2019) 8 Cal.5th 175; see also Grieves v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 163-164.) Accordingly, the demurrer as to the first cause of action is overruled.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

LAKELAND WEST CAPITAL VIII, LLC VS WILLIAM F. LASKY

(Globe, supra, 457 U.S. 596, 607, 102 S.Ct. 2613, 73 L.Ed.2d 248 [protection of minor victims of sex crimes from further trauma and embarrassment]; accord, Press–Enterprise II, supra, 478 U.S. 1, 9, fn. 2, 106 S.Ct. 2735, 92 L.Ed.2d 1; Press–Enterprise I, supra, 464 U.S. 501, 512, 104 S.Ct. 819, 78 L.Ed.2d 629 [privacy interests of a prospective juror during individual voir dire]; Rovinsky, supra, 722 F.2d 197, 200 [protection of witnesses from embarrassment or intimidation so extreme that it would traumatize

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

DIAHANNA ALLEN VS ORAN BELILLTI, ET AL.

In Prudential-Bache, the court of appeal issued a peremptory writ directing the trial court to vacate the trial date set in the matter pursuant to fast track rules, until remittitur issued on an appeal from the trial court’s order denying defendant’s motion to compel arbitration: “Code of Civil Procedure section 916 provides that “the perfecting of an appeal stays proceedings in the trial court ... upon the matters embraced therein or affected thereby....”

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

JOYCE PATTON ET AL VS ALL CITY MANAGMENT SERVICES INC

By executing this settlement agreement, Defendant agrees not to challenge Plaintiffs’ right to continue to be class representatives in the Action for purposes of settlement. Nothing in this Paragraph shall be construed as a waiver or limitation on Defendant’s affirmative defenses. (Motion Exh. A ¶ 15.) It is true that the paragraph contains no provision for the scheduling of the payments identified. This, however, is not a barrier to enforcement.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

PORTER VS. CITY OF RICHMOND

Because this is the first challenge to the pleadings, Plaintiffs will be given leave to amend. Bane Act (C/A 3) Plaintiffs sued the City for violation of the Bane Act, Civil Code section 52.1. “Under the Bane Act, if a person interferes ‘by threat, intimidation, or coercion,’ or attempts to do so, with any individual's exercise or enjoyment of rights secured by the Constitutions or laws of the United States or California, the individual may bring a civil action for damages and other relief. (Civ.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

MARLENE ALFARO VS LYNEER STAFFING SOLUTIONS, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, 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.) No other extrinsic evidence can be considered (i.e., no “speaking demurrers”). A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

HERMOSA FITNESS, LLC VS CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, ET AL.

The abatement order was part of a final administrative decision which Petitioner could challenge immediately under CCP section 1094.5. Respondents cite to language in Hermosa Beach Municipal Code (“HBMC”) section 8.28.070(E) and (F) suggesting that the property owner can request an extension of time to comply with an abatement order or may make “further appeal” to the Council. (Oppo. 11-12; RJN Exh. C.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

EDUARDO MARTINEZ VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA INC

. §1033.5, Defendant did not properly challenge Plaintiff’s claimed costs as costs that were not “reasonably incurred by the buyer in connection with the commencement and prosecution of [the] action.” (Civil Code §1794(d).) The “Legislature intended the word ‘expenses’ [in Civil Code §1794(d)] to cover items not included in the detailed statutory definition of ‘costs’ [in C.C.P. §1033.5], including expert fees.” (Jensen v. BMW of North America, Inc. (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 112, 137-138.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

521 RAMSEY VS WAFICK FOUAD

Errors of law are not proper grounds to challenge an arbitrator’s award. Plaintiff is asserting that the arbitrator made a mistake of law or fact by finding that Amal Zaky was a party to the purchase and sale agreement; not that he exceeded his authority. This is not a proper grounds to modify or correct the arbitration award. With respect to Defendants refusal to mediate, the arbitrator found that there had been no mediation offer properly made to Wafick Zaky or Amal Y.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

GIOVANNA WILKERSON VS OCEAN PROPERTIES

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

    Sep 24, 2020

JANE CUBICCIOTTI VS DRAGAN CONSTRUCTION, INC.

To the extent Defendant maintains the allegations are improper, it can challenge the pleadings by motion. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion is procedurally deficient and cannot be granted at this time. Specifically, the declaration submitted in support of the motion does not comply with CRC 3.1324 and the proposed FAC attached as Exhibit 1 to the motion appears to be incomplete since it does not include the fourth cause of action Plaintiff discusses in her motion.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

YI HAN VS QINGYUN JIANG

On May 21, 2020, this case was reassigned to Department 34 based on a preemptory challenge and all hearings were advanced to that date, vacated, and was to be rescheduled in the newly assigned department. On August 18, 2020, Specially-Appearing Defendant Qingyun Jiang filed the instant motion to quash service of summons and dismiss the case for lack of personal jurisdiction under the Hague Convention. ANALYSIS: I. Motions to Quash Service of Summons A.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

DISTRICT SQUARE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, A MUNICIPAL ENTITY

District Square contends that its declaratory relief claim does not challenge the APC’s actions, but rather seeks an adjudication of its rights in light of the APC’s actions, including declarations that (1) the deadlines for the City to act under the LAMC have expired and the APC appeals are deemed denied under LAMC sections 11.5.7.C.6.c-d and 16.05.H.4, and City Charter section 245; and (2) the City acted in bad faith in denying the Project.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

TIMED OUT LLC VS PRISMA ENTERTAINMENT LLC

Courts have permitted third parties to intervene and challenge judgments for just such reasons. (See Villaruel v. Arreola (1977) 66 Cal.App.3d 309, 318 [“The proceeding may be taken by a motion in the action in which the judgment was entered, or by an independent action in equity.”].)

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

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.