Motion to dismiss in Caifornia

 Procedural Posture

Plaintiff sought review of a judgment from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which granted defendant property owners' motion for a new trial on the complaint brought by plaintiff to recover an amount due for labor performed and materials used.

 

Overview: What exactly is meant by california motion to dismiss

 

The property owners had engaged the services of plaintiff for the remodeling of their home. Plaintiff had brought a complaint against the property owners to recover an amount due for labor performed and materials used. The trial court had entered a judgment in plaintiff's favor in the sum of $ 4,762. Thereafter, the trial court granted the property owners' motion for a new trial. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the trial court's grant of a new trial, and the property owners' challenged the trial court's initial judgment in plaintiff's favor. The property owners contended that the granting of a new trial was warranted because the nature of the evidence compelled a finding that plaintiff acted as a contractor who was required to be licensed before bringing his lawsuit for services provided. The court held that the question of whether one was an independent contractor or an employee was one of fact depending on all the circumstances of the relations of the parties. The court declined to overturn the trial court's decision in granting a new trial because no abuse of discretion appeared in this case.

 

Outcome

The court affirmed the trial court's judgment that granted the property owners' motion for a new trial on the complaint brought by plaintiff to recover an amount due for labor performed and materials used.

Procedural Posture

Petitioner sought a writ of mandate that directed respondent, the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), to vacate its order that denied petitioners' peremptory challenge to the judge assigned, pursuant to Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 170.6, because the challenge was untimely.

 

Overview:

Petitioner sought a writ of mandate that directed respondent court to vacate its order that denied petitioners' peremptory challenge to the judge assigned, pursuant to Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 170.6, because the challenge was untimely. Petitioners argued that they learned of the assignment of the judge only at a hearing on the real party in interest's motion for summary judgment. The court denied the writ of mandate and held that petitioners' peremptory challenge to the judge assigned was untimely under the Los Angeles County Superior Court's Trial Court Delay Reduction Act rules, Cal. Super. Ct., L. A. County Rules, ch. 11, Project Rule 1104.1. The court held that the matter was scheduled for hearing in an identified department and the name of the judge assigned to that department was known at least 10 days before the hearing, and that the judge could be disqualified only by a challenge filed at least five days before the hearing. The court held that knowledge of the assignment did not mean actual knowledge of petitioner, but that upon further investigation, the identity of the judge assigned to the particular department was ascertainable.

 

Outcome

The writ of mandate was denied because petitioners' peremptory challenge to the judge assigned was untimely under the Los Angeles County Superior Court's Trial Court Delay Reduction Act rules.