25 Cited authorities

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”
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
Teselle v. McLoughlin
173 Cal.App.4th 156 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) Cited 341 times
Stating that a right to an accounting can exist solely from possession by the defendant of money which, because of the parties' relationship, the defendant is obliged to surrender
Jolley v. Chase Home Finance, LLC
213 Cal.App.4th 872 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) Cited 298 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that bank, as "active participant in a home construction enterprise," may have duty "to deal reasonably with borrowers in default to try to effectuate a workable loan modification"
People v. Loeun
17 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1997) Cited 436 times
Finding in 1997 that "when the prosecution chooses to establish the requisite ‘pattern’ by evidence of ‘two or more’ predicate offenses committed on a single occasion by ‘two or more persons,’ it can, as here, rely on evidence of the defendant's commission of the charged offense"
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
Shamsian v. Atlantic Richfield Co.
107 Cal.App.4th 967 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) Cited 195 times
Noting that the one year statute of limitations period under § 340 applies to causes of action that require an award without regard to plaintiff's actual loss
Bourquez v. Superior Court
156 Cal.App.4th 1275 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) Cited 140 times
Holding that pending petitions for two-year extensions would be considered petitions for indefinite terms
Younger v. Superior Court
21 Cal.3d 102 (Cal. 1978) Cited 212 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that an "amendment" that eliminated a prior procedure for records repealed statutory authority for that procedure
Align Technology, Inc. v. Tran
179 Cal.App.4th 949 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) Cited 80 times
Holding "legislative purpose of former section 439, the predecessor of section 426.30 . . . was to provide for the settlement, in a single action, of all conflicting claims between the parties arising out of the same transaction" and to "avoid a multiplicity of actions"
Section 2923.7 - Establishment of single point of contact upon borrower requesting foreclosure prevention alternative
Cal. Civ. Code § 2923.7 Cited 408 times
Discussing the nature of "single point of contact"

Minute Order

25 Cited authorities

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”

Stating that a right to an accounting can exist solely from possession by the defendant of money which, because of the parties' relationship, the defendant is obliged to surrender

Holding that bank, as "active participant in a home construction enterprise," may have duty "to deal reasonably with borrowers in default to try to effectuate a workable loan modification"

Finding in 1997 that "when the prosecution chooses to establish the requisite ‘pattern’ by evidence of ‘two or more’ predicate offenses committed on a single occasion by ‘two or more persons,’ it can, as here, rely on evidence of the defendant's commission of the charged offense"

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

Noting that the one year statute of limitations period under § 340 applies to causes of action that require an award without regard to plaintiff's actual loss

Holding that pending petitions for two-year extensions would be considered petitions for indefinite terms

Holding that an "amendment" that eliminated a prior procedure for records repealed statutory authority for that procedure

Holding "legislative purpose of former section 439, the predecessor of section 426.30 . . . was to provide for the settlement, in a single action, of all conflicting claims between the parties arising out of the same transaction" and to "avoid a multiplicity of actions"

Discussing the nature of "single point of contact"