19 Cited authorities

Badie v. Bank of America
67 Cal.App.4th 779 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) Cited 1,288 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a credit card company could not introduce an alternative dispute resolution provision through a "bill stuffer" where nothing in the original agreement mentioned dispute resolution
Reichardt v. Hoffman
52 Cal.App.4th 754 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) Cited 622 times 2 Legal Analyses
Recognizing that absent an exceptional showing of good cause, an appellate court will not address issues raised for the first time in a reply brief
E-Fab, Inc. v. Accountants, Inc. Services
153 Cal.App.4th 1308 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) Cited 291 times 3 Legal Analyses
Finding that plaintiff's claims were not time-barred and reversing judgment of dismissal
Katzberg v. Regents of the University of California
29 Cal.4th 300 (Cal. 2002) Cited 275 times
Holding that an action for damages was not available to redress a freestanding claim pursuant to Article I, Section 7 of the California Constitution; the Bane Act was not discussed
Berg & Berg Enterprises, LLC v. Boyle
178 Cal.App.4th 1020 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) Cited 203 times 10 Legal Analyses
Ruling on a demurrer
REO Broadcasting Consultants v. Martin
69 Cal.App.4th 489 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999) Cited 131 times
Refusing to entertain argument raised for first time in reply brief
Align Technology, Inc. v. Tran
179 Cal.App.4th 949 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) Cited 79 times
Holding "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"
Pavicich, v. Santucci
85 Cal.App.4th 382 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) Cited 89 times
Affirming trial court's finding that plaintiff properly stated conspiracy claim against attorney where plaintiff alleged that attorney breached duty to abstain from injuring plaintiff through "express misrepresentation," even though the attorney was not "acting in any capacity other than as attorney" for co-defendants
George v. Auto. Club of South. California
201 Cal.App.4th 1112 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) Cited 47 times
Applying rule, but finding no ambiguity
Ferguson v. Yaspan
233 Cal.App.4th 676 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) Cited 36 times
In Ferguson, two couples who co-owned a flat in London agreed that in the event both members of one of the couples died, the other couple would have the option of buying out the interest of the deceased couple for $325,000.

Hearing Demurrer

19 Cited authorities

Holding that a credit card company could not introduce an alternative dispute resolution provision through a "bill stuffer" where nothing in the original agreement mentioned dispute resolution

Recognizing that absent an exceptional showing of good cause, an appellate court will not address issues raised for the first time in a reply brief

Finding that plaintiff's claims were not time-barred and reversing judgment of dismissal

Holding that an action for damages was not available to redress a freestanding claim pursuant to Article I, Section 7 of the California Constitution; the Bane Act was not discussed

Ruling on a demurrer

Refusing to entertain argument raised for first time in reply brief

Holding "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"

Applying rule, but finding no ambiguity

In Ferguson, two couples who co-owned a flat in London agreed that in the event both members of one of the couples died, the other couple would have the option of buying out the interest of the deceased couple for $325,000.