23 Cited authorities

Zelig v. County of Los Angeles
27 Cal.4th 1112 (Cal. 2002) Cited 956 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding public entity could not be liable under respondeat superior because the plaintiff had failed to allege that the public employees were engaged in conduct within the scope of employment that would render the public employee liable to the plaintiff
Martinez v. Combs
49 Cal.4th 35 (Cal. 2010) Cited 479 times 45 Legal Analyses
Holding that California's wage and hour laws do not impose liability on "individual corporate agents acting within the scope of their agency"
Khoury v. Maly's of California, Inc.
14 Cal.App.4th 612 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993) Cited 379 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."
Davidson v. City of Westminster
32 Cal.3d 197 (Cal. 1982) Cited 522 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding officers not liable for the plaintiff's injury because the plaintiff alleged the officers merely failed to act timely rather than any affirmative misconduct on the part of the officers
Nestle v. City of Santa Monica
6 Cal.3d 920 (Cal. 1972) Cited 466 times
In Nestle we held, inter alia, that a nuisance action based on airport noise was improperly dismissed on the basis of government immunity, and suggested that the plaintiffs on remand might be able to demonstrate a continuing nuisance.
Imperial Merchant Ser. v. Hunt
47 Cal.4th 381 (Cal. 2009) Cited 148 times
Distinguishing cases where intent to create exclusive remedy rested only on an assumption to that effect, or an inference drawn from rules of statutory construction
Johnson v. State
69 Cal.2d 782 (Cal. 1968) Cited 475 times
Holding that, while a decision to parole is a basic policy decision, a parole officer’s subsequent decision as to what warnings to give to foster parents was "a determination at the lowest, ministerial rung of official action" and not entitled to immunity
Metcalf v. County of San Joaquin
42 Cal.4th 1121 (Cal. 2008) Cited 141 times 1 Legal Analyses
Reading §§ 830 & 835, subd. together as "reflect[ing] an ordinary-negligence standard"
Brown v. Poway Unified School Dist.
4 Cal.4th 820 (Cal. 1993) Cited 168 times
Stating that for res ipsa loquitor to apply the accident must have been caused "by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant"
Brenner v. City of El Cajon
113 Cal.App.4th 434 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) Cited 91 times
Affirming order sustaining demurrer where complaint alleged intersection was dangerous because of increased traffic volume and speed, high pedestrian use and failure to install traffic control devices or signs

Csjs Reply Iso Demurrer

23 Cited authorities

Finding public entity could not be liable under respondeat superior because the plaintiff had failed to allege that the public employees were engaged in conduct within the scope of employment that would render the public employee liable to the plaintiff

Holding that California's wage and hour laws do not impose liability on "individual corporate agents acting within the scope of their agency"

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."

Finding officers not liable for the plaintiff's injury because the plaintiff alleged the officers merely failed to act timely rather than any affirmative misconduct on the part of the officers

In Nestle we held, inter alia, that a nuisance action based on airport noise was improperly dismissed on the basis of government immunity, and suggested that the plaintiffs on remand might be able to demonstrate a continuing nuisance.

Distinguishing cases where intent to create exclusive remedy rested only on an assumption to that effect, or an inference drawn from rules of statutory construction

Holding that, while a decision to parole is a basic policy decision, a parole officer’s subsequent decision as to what warnings to give to foster parents was "a determination at the lowest, ministerial rung of official action" and not entitled to immunity

Reading §§ 830 & 835, subd. together as "reflect[ing] an ordinary-negligence standard"

Stating that for res ipsa loquitor to apply the accident must have been caused "by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant"

Affirming order sustaining demurrer where complaint alleged intersection was dangerous because of increased traffic volume and speed, high pedestrian use and failure to install traffic control devices or signs