29 Cited authorities

Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp.
29 Cal.4th 1134 (Cal. 2003) Cited 1,692 times 17 Legal Analyses
Holding that plaintiff cannot recover damages under Cal. Bus. Prof. Code § 17200 unless plaintiff has "an ownership interest in the money it seeks to recover"
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"
Hughes v. Pair
46 Cal.4th 1035 (Cal. 2009) Cited 995 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that discomfort, worry, anxiety, upset stomach, concern, and agitation did not establish severe emotional distress
Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist.
2 Cal.4th 962 (Cal. 1992) Cited 1,196 times 1 Legal Analyses
In Aubry, supra, 42 Cal.App.4th 579 at pages 587 through 588, 49 Cal.Rptr.2d 703, the court, citing language from Labor Council, held the Regents were not required to pay private contractors the prevailing wage under section 1770 et seq., which applies to public works, for the construction of student and staff housing.
Action v. City of Santa Monica
41 Cal.4th 1232 (Cal. 2007) Cited 468 times
Rejecting contention that litigation privilege does not apply when prosecutor files a UCL case, or when plaintiff was not a party to prior litigation
Lyle v. Warner Brothers Television Productions
38 Cal.4th 264 (Cal. 2006) Cited 472 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that "California courts have adopted the same standard as [Title VII] for hostile work environment sexual harassment claims."
Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc.
178 Cal.App.4th 243 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) Cited 412 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that all materials submitted by plaintiff to DFEH, including two intake questionnaires, may be considered for purposes of determining whether plaintiff had exhausted his administrative remedies
Kashian v. Harriman
98 Cal.App.4th 892 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) Cited 446 times
Holding that even the "fil[ing] [of] meritless lawsuits on behalf of 'sham plaintiffs'" was "essentially communicative conduct" to which the litigation privilege applied, "even though it also may have involved noncommunicative acts"
Neville v. Chudacoff
160 Cal.App.4th 1255 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) Cited 277 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that to be privileged under section 47, a statement must be "reasonably relevant" to pending or contemplated litigation
Mintz v. Blue Cross of California
172 Cal.App.4th 1594 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) Cited 131 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that "corporate agents and employees acting for and on behalf of a corporation cannot be held liable for inducing a breach of the corporation's contract"

Memorandum Points and Authorities

29 Cited authorities

Holding that plaintiff cannot recover damages under Cal. Bus. Prof. Code § 17200 unless plaintiff has "an ownership interest in the money it seeks to recover"

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 discomfort, worry, anxiety, upset stomach, concern, and agitation did not establish severe emotional distress

Rejecting contention that litigation privilege does not apply when prosecutor files a UCL case, or when plaintiff was not a party to prior litigation

Holding that "California courts have adopted the same standard as [Title VII] for hostile work environment sexual harassment claims."

Holding that all materials submitted by plaintiff to DFEH, including two intake questionnaires, may be considered for purposes of determining whether plaintiff had exhausted his administrative remedies

Holding that even the "fil[ing] [of] meritless lawsuits on behalf of 'sham plaintiffs'" was "essentially communicative conduct" to which the litigation privilege applied, "even though it also may have involved noncommunicative acts"

Holding that to be privileged under section 47, a statement must be "reasonably relevant" to pending or contemplated litigation

Holding that "corporate agents and employees acting for and on behalf of a corporation cannot be held liable for inducing a breach of the corporation's contract"