Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co.
19 Cal.4th 26 (Cal. 1998) Cited 766 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that title insurer owed no duty of ordinary care to non-clients, commenting that "[i]n the business arena it would be unprecedented to impose a duty on one actor to operate its business in a manner that would ensure the financial success of transactions between third parties"
Careau & Co. v. Security Pacific Business Credit, Inc.
222 Cal.App.3d 1371 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990) Cited 937 timesHolding that a claim for breach of the implied covenant may be disregarded if it rests on the same set of facts as a claim for breach of contract
Goodman v. Kennedy
18 Cal.3d 335 (Cal. 1976) Cited 613 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that defendant attorney owed no duty to third parties who relied on faulty advice the attorney gave his clients "in the absence of any showing that the legal advice was foreseeably transmitted to or relied upon by plaintiffs or that plaintiffs were intended beneficiaries of a transaction to which the advice pertained"
Tuchscher Development Enterprises, Inc. v. San Diego Unified Port Dist.
106 Cal.App.4th 1219 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) Cited 273 timesFinding claims within the ambit of subdivision (e) where they arose from "communications to either the City or Lennar involving the proposed development of Crystal Bay and other bayfront property"
Secrest v. Security National Mortgage Loan Trust 2002-2
167 Cal.App.4th 544 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) Cited 214 times 2 Legal AnalysesHolding that "an agreement by which a lender agreed to forbear from exercising the right of foreclosure under a deed of trust securing an interest in real property comes within the statute of frauds"
Align Technology, Inc. v. Tran
179 Cal.App.4th 949 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) Cited 80 timesHolding "legislative purpose of former section 439, the predecessor of section 426.30 . . . was to provide for the settlement, in a single action, of all conflicting claims between the parties arising out of the same transaction" and to "avoid a multiplicity of actions"
George v. Auto. Club of South. California
201 Cal.App.4th 1112 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) Cited 47 timesApplying rule, but finding no ambiguity
Trustees of Capital Wholesale v. Shearson Lehman
221 Cal.App.3d 617 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990) Cited 29 timesDismissing claim for breach of the implied covenant without leave to amend where plaintiff failed to allege facts to support such claim
South Shore Land Co. v. Petersen
226 Cal.App.2d 725 (Cal. Ct. App. 1964) Cited 66 timesIn SouthShore, the parties had presented competing chains of title to establish their individual claims of right to the property at issue.
Munoz v. Kaiser Steel Corp.
156 Cal.App.3d 965 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984) Cited 28 timesNoting applicability of one-year statute of limitations to §§ 970-72 claims