14 Cited authorities

Lazar v. Superior Court
12 Cal.4th 631 (Cal. 1996) Cited 1,686 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that justifiable reliance is a required element of a fraud claim
Lectrodryer v. SeoulBank
77 Cal.App.4th 723 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) Cited 335 times
Finding there was sufficient evidence that a bank was prepaid for a letter of credit and thus the bank's refusal to honor a letter of credit created unjust enrichment
Khoury v. Maly's of California, Inc.
14 Cal.App.4th 612 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993) Cited 385 times
Holding that " demurrer for uncertainty is strictly construed, even where a complaint is in some respects uncertain, because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures."
Katzberg v. Regents of the University of California
29 Cal.4th 300 (Cal. 2002) Cited 277 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
Dial 800 v. Fesbinder
118 Cal.App.4th 32 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) Cited 139 times
Recognizing that an "interpleader proceeding is traditionally viewed as two lawsuits in one," where the "first dispute is between the stakeholder and the claimants to determine the right to interplead the funds," and the "second dispute to be resolved is who is to receive the interpleaded funds"
Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp.
185 Cal.App.3d 135 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986) Cited 165 times
Holding that to state a prima facie case for breach of express warranty a plaintiff must allege that the breach of warranty proximately caused an injury
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
Universal Sales Corp. v. Cal. Etc. Mfg. Co.
20 Cal.2d 751 (Cal. 1942) Cited 365 times
In Universal Sales Corp. v. California Press Mfg. Co., 20 Cal.2d 751, 128 P.2d 665, 671 (Cal. 1942), as in this case, separate contractual provisions applied together created an ambiguity on the face of the contract.
Cummings v. Stanley
177 Cal.App.4th 493 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) Cited 48 times
Recognizing split of authority but siding with weight of recent authority holding exhaustion of administrative remedies defense waived if not timely asserted in trial court
Harnedy v. Whitty
110 Cal.App.4th 1333 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) Cited 51 times
Concluding appellant could not wait until after trial on the merits to argue on appeal that decision should be set aside for lack of jurisdiction

Hearing Demurrer

14 Cited authorities

Holding that justifiable reliance is a required element of a fraud claim

Finding there was sufficient evidence that a bank was prepaid for a letter of credit and thus the bank's refusal to honor a letter of credit created unjust enrichment

Holding that " demurrer for uncertainty is strictly construed, even where a complaint is in some respects uncertain, because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures."

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

Recognizing that an "interpleader proceeding is traditionally viewed as two lawsuits in one," where the "first dispute is between the stakeholder and the claimants to determine the right to interplead the funds," and the "second dispute to be resolved is who is to receive the interpleaded funds"

Holding that to state a prima facie case for breach of express warranty a plaintiff must allege that the breach of warranty proximately caused an injury

Applying rule, but finding no ambiguity

In Universal Sales Corp. v. California Press Mfg. Co., 20 Cal.2d 751, 128 P.2d 665, 671 (Cal. 1942), as in this case, separate contractual provisions applied together created an ambiguity on the face of the contract.

Recognizing split of authority but siding with weight of recent authority holding exhaustion of administrative remedies defense waived if not timely asserted in trial court

Concluding appellant could not wait until after trial on the merits to argue on appeal that decision should be set aside for lack of jurisdiction