37 Cited authorities

American Pipe Construction Co. v. Utah
414 U.S. 538 (1974) Cited 2,155 times 163 Legal Analyses
Holding the commencement of a class action "suspends the applicable statute of limitations as to all asserted members of the class who would have been parties had the suit been permitted to continue as a class action"
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
Robinson Helicopter Co. v. Dana Corp.
34 Cal.4th 979 (Cal. 2004) Cited 766 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding the "narrow" exception to the economic loss rule is "limited to a defendant's affirmative misrepresentations on which a plaintiff relies and which expose a plaintiff to liability for personal damages."
People ex rel. Lockyer v. Shamrock Foods Co.
24 Cal.4th 415 (Cal. 2000) Cited 569 times
S082325 Filed November 6, 2000 Appeal from Superior Court, San Diego County, No. 702204, Robert J. O'Neill, Judge, Ct.App. 4/1 D031041, Review Granted, 73 Cal.App.4th 1396. DeCuir Somach, Somach, Simmons Dunn, Michael E. Vergara; Blodgett, Makechnie Vetne, John H. Vetne; Landels Ripley Diamond, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes Lerach and Sanford Svetcov for Defendant and Appellant. Daniel E. Lungren and Bill Lockyer, Attorneys General, George Williamson, Roderick E. Walston and Richard M. Frank, Chief
Erlich v. Menezes
21 Cal.4th 543 (Cal. 1999) Cited 478 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a defendant may not be liable for negligent breach of contract
LiMandri v. Judkins
52 Cal.App.4th 326 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) Cited 515 times
Holding that nondisclosure may constitute fraud "when the defendant had exclusive knowledge of material facts not known to the plaintiff"
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"
E-Fab, Inc. v. Accountants, Inc. Services
153 Cal.App.4th 1308 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) Cited 293 times 3 Legal Analyses
Finding that plaintiff's claims were not time-barred and reversing judgment of dismissal
Mexia v. Rinker Boat Company, Inc.
174 Cal.App.4th 1297 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) Cited 218 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that interpreting the one-year provision as a statute of limitations would be inconsistent with the statute's "legislative intent to expand consumer protections and remedies"
Cadlo v. Owens-Illinois, Inc.
125 Cal.App.4th 513 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) Cited 232 times
Finding that for fraud, a plaintiff "must allege the specifics of his or her reliance on the misrepresentation to show a bona fide claim of actual reliance."

Hearing Demurrer

37 Cited authorities

Holding the commencement of a class action "suspends the applicable statute of limitations as to all asserted members of the class who would have been parties had the suit been permitted to continue as a class action"

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

Holding the "narrow" exception to the economic loss rule is "limited to a defendant's affirmative misrepresentations on which a plaintiff relies and which expose a plaintiff to liability for personal damages."

Holding that a defendant may not be liable for negligent breach of contract

Holding that nondisclosure may constitute fraud "when the defendant had exclusive knowledge of material facts not known to the plaintiff"

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"

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

Holding that interpreting the one-year provision as a statute of limitations would be inconsistent with the statute's "legislative intent to expand consumer protections and remedies"

Finding that for fraud, a plaintiff "must allege the specifics of his or her reliance on the misrepresentation to show a bona fide claim of actual reliance."