14 Cited authorities

  1. Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc.

    24 Cal.4th 317 (Cal. 2000)   Cited 3,305 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an implied covenant "cannot be endowed with an existence independent of its contractual underpinnings. It cannot impose substantive duties or limits on the contracting parties beyond those incorporated in the specific terms of their agreement."
  2. Blank v. Kirwan

    39 Cal.3d 311 (Cal. 1985)   Cited 3,079 times
    Holding that the standard for a failure to state a claim is whether "the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action"
  3. Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co.

    19 Cal.4th 26 (Cal. 1998)   Cited 768 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding 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"
  4. Committee on Children's Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp.

    35 Cal.3d 197 (Cal. 1983)   Cited 717 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that no fiduciary relationship existed between advertisers of cereal and consumers because "it is unnecessary to call upon the law of fiduciary relationships to perform a function for which it was not designed and is largely unsuited"
  5. Smith v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co.

    93 Cal.App.4th 700 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 397 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding the unlawful prong forbids "anything that can be properly called a business practice and that at the same time is forbidden by law"
  6. Horn v. Cushman & Wakefield Western, Inc.

    72 Cal.App.4th 798 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 380 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that evidence of positive performance reviews, commendations, salary increases, and vague assurances that Plaintiff would become a sales manager was not sufficient to create a triable issue of fact as to whether the parties had implicitly agreed [the company's] right to terminate [him] would be limited."
  7. Del E. Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co.

    123 Cal.App.3d 593 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981)   Cited 238 times
    Holding that an entitlement to future possession is insufficient to maintain an action for conversion
  8. Sanowicz v. Bacal

    234 Cal.App.4th 1027 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 62 times
    In Sanowicz, the plaintiff was a real estate salesperson working at Keller Williams (“KW”), a licensed real estate agency.
  9. Mosier v. Southern California Physicians Ins. Exchange

    63 Cal.App.4th 1022 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 103 times
    In Mosier, a California appellate court held that, when an insurer provides a defense to an uninsured individual, the insurer "owe[s] the same duties to defend [the plaintiff] as it would have had [the plaintiff] in fact been its insured."
  10. Unilab Corp. v. Angeles-IPA

    244 Cal.App.4th 622 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 30 times
    In Unilab, the appellant discussed two sections of the Restatement Third of Restitution in support of its theory on appeal.
  11. Rule 2.251 - Electronic service

    Cal. R. 2.251   Cited 15 times

    (a)Authorization for electronic service When a document may be served by mail, express mail, overnight delivery, or fax transmission, the document may be served electronically under Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6, Penal Code section 690.5, and the rules in this chapter. For purposes of electronic service made pursuant to Penal Code section 690.5, express consent to electronic service is required.[]= (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2022; previously amended effective January 1, 2007