24 Cited authorities

Blank v. Kirwan
39 Cal.3d 311 (Cal. 1985) Cited 3,071 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"
Fontenot v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
198 Cal.App.4th 256 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) Cited 606 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that, while MERS did not have “its own right to assign the note, since it had no interest in the note to assign,” it had the power to assign the note as the lender's “nominee” or “agent”
McKell v. Washington Mutual Inc.
142 Cal.App.4th 1457 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) Cited 711 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a loan transaction is a business practice under the UCL
Rakestraw v. California Physicians' Service
81 Cal.App.4th 39 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) Cited 486 times
Requiring party to "clearly and specifically set forth the ‘applicable substantive law’ and the legal basis for amendment, i.e., the elements of the cause of action and authority for it," and all specific factual allegations for the claim
Cantu v. Resolution Trust Corp.
4 Cal.App.4th 857 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992) Cited 518 times
Holding that "intentional infliction of emotional distress is an injury to the person"
Cansino v. Bank of America
224 Cal.App.4th 1462 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) Cited 148 times
Holding that a representation that a home would appreciate in value was a prediction about the future and thus could not support a fraud claim
Donohue v. Apple, Inc.
871 F. Supp. 2d 913 (N.D. Cal. 2012) Cited 120 times
Holding that the plaintiff failed to plead actual reliance because he did not "allege that he relied on the [misrepresentation] in making his purchase"
Low v. Linkedin Corporation
900 F. Supp. 2d 1010 (N.D. Cal. 2012) Cited 109 times
Holding plaintiffs satisfied Article III standing even though they had failed to allege reliance on particular representations, and even though their FAL claims were dismissed with prejudice on that basis
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
Otworth v. Southern Pac. Transportation Co.
166 Cal.App.3d 452 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985) Cited 166 times
In Otworth v. Southern Pacific Transp. Co., 166 Cal.App.3d 452, 167 Cal.App.3d 102E, 212 Cal.Rptr. 743, 744-45 (1985), the plaintiff alleged conversion, breach of contract, violations of constitutional rights, and unjust enrichment against his employer for withholding federal and state income tax.

Memorandum Points and Authorities

24 Cited authorities

Holding that the standard for a failure to state a claim is whether "the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action"

Holding that, while MERS did not have “its own right to assign the note, since it had no interest in the note to assign,” it had the power to assign the note as the lender's “nominee” or “agent”

Holding that a loan transaction is a business practice under the UCL

Requiring party to "clearly and specifically set forth the ‘applicable substantive law’ and the legal basis for amendment, i.e., the elements of the cause of action and authority for it," and all specific factual allegations for the claim

Holding that "intentional infliction of emotional distress is an injury to the person"

Holding that a representation that a home would appreciate in value was a prediction about the future and thus could not support a fraud claim

Holding that the plaintiff failed to plead actual reliance because he did not "allege that he relied on the [misrepresentation] in making his purchase"

Holding plaintiffs satisfied Article III standing even though they had failed to allege reliance on particular representations, and even though their FAL claims were dismissed with prejudice on that basis

Holding that an entitlement to future possession is insufficient to maintain an action for conversion

In Otworth v. Southern Pacific Transp. Co., 166 Cal.App.3d 452, 167 Cal.App.3d 102E, 212 Cal.Rptr. 743, 744-45 (1985), the plaintiff alleged conversion, breach of contract, violations of constitutional rights, and unjust enrichment against his employer for withholding federal and state income tax.