§Why CasetextPricing

Hrg 81318 Mil No 1 To Exclude Evidence Re Unjust Enrichment

Motion

14 Cited authorities

  1. McKell v. Washington Mutual Inc.

    142 Cal.App.4th 1457 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 713 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a loan transaction is a business practice under the UCL

  2. Durell v. Sharp Healthcare

    183 Cal.App.4th 1350 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 549 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that actual reliance is an element of CUCL claims under the unlawful prong

  3. People v. Harris

    60 Cal.App.4th 727 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 631 times
    Holding that 23 year old acts were not admissible

  4. Peterson v. Cellco Partnership

    164 Cal.App.4th 1583 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 320 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiffs who challenged sales commissions on insurance policies but did not allege that "they could have bought the same insurance for a lower price either directly from the insurer or from a licensed agent" could not "show they suffered actual economic injury"

  5. Melchior v. New Line Productions, Inc.

    106 Cal.App.4th 779 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 316 times
    Holding that there is no cause of action in California for unjust enrichment

  6. Levine v. Blue Shield of California

    189 Cal.App.4th 1117 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 170 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that there is no cause of action in California for unjust enrichment

  7. Hernandez v. Lopez

    180 Cal.App.4th 932 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 98 times
    Holding that "a plaintiff" may "seek compensation under an unjust enrichment theory . . . based on the pleaded cause of action for breach of contract"

  8. Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn.

    19 Cal.App.4th 761 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 119 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding "fees are not authorized for exhibits not used at trial" under section 1033.5, subdivision

  9. Dunkin v. Boskey

    82 Cal.App.4th 171 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 96 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing cause of action

  10. Hyatt v. Sierra Boat Co.

    79 Cal.App.3d 325 (Cal. Ct. App. 1978)   Cited 132 times
    In Hyatt v. Sierra Boat Co. (1978) 79 Cal.App.3d 325 (Hyatt), the plaintiff was driving in the right lane on a highway late at night when his vehicle apparently struck a glancing blow against the defendant's boat trailer, which was parked alongside the highway, then skidded or rolled into a telephone pole.

  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