Schifando v. City of Los Angeles
31 Cal.4th 1074 (Cal. 2003) Cited 1,269 timesDenying request where the materials sought to be judicially noticed were not particularly supportive of the respondent's cause or relevant to the action and noting that "[n]o party has alleged" what the amicus curiae had purported to respond to
City v. Merrill Lynch
68 Cal.App.4th 445 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) Cited 457 timesHolding allegation that brokerage firm encouraged client to undertake "imprudent and unsuitable" investment program that included "speculative investments in extremely volatile securities, risky transactions in highly leveraged interest-bearing instruments, and excessive commissions" sufficient to state a claim for breach of fiduciary duty
Day v. Alta Bates Medical Center
98 Cal.App.4th 243 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) Cited 162 timesA095702 Filed May 8, 2002 Certified for Publication Appeal from Alameda County Superior Court, No. 831580-5, Honorable Judith Ford, Judge. Montie S. Day for Appellant. John L. Fleer, Risé A. Donlon, Fleer, Daugherty Raub for Respondent. HAERLE, J. I. INTRODUCTION This is an appeal from a summary judgment entered in favor of a hospital (Alta Bates) in a quantum meruit action filed against it by appellant Day, an attorney (Day). Alta Bates had filed a hospital lien (see Civ. Code § 3045.1 et seq. (section
Rodas v. Spiegel
87 Cal.App.4th 513 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) Cited 77 timesAffirming trial court's order sustaining the defendant's demurrer based on admissions in a plaintiff's opposition and observing, "[w]e may, and shall, take judicial notice of admissions in plaintiff's opposition to demurrer"
Sunset Drive Corp. v. City of Redlands
73 Cal.App.4th 215 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999) Cited 80 times 1 Legal AnalysesFinding "combined petition for writ of mandate and complaint for damages for violation of . . . civil rights" stated claims for both mandate and damages
Joslin v. H.A.S. Ins. Brokerage
184 Cal.App.3d 369 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986) Cited 112 timesIn Joslin v. H.A.S. Ins. Brokerage (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 369, the plaintiffs brought an action against an automobile service company for failure to pay for defects in an automobile.
Stevens v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County
75 Cal.App.4th 594 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999) Cited 70 timesHolding that plaintiff may bring a claim under the UCL based on a violation of insurance licensing requirements because the statutes did not bar private enforcement
Regents of University of California v. Principal Financial Group
412 F. Supp. 2d 1037 (N.D. Cal. 2006) Cited 26 timesHolding that "the fact that [the insured] was the direct beneficiary of the medical treatment does not bar plaintiff's claim" against the insurer
Earhart v. William Low Co.
25 Cal.3d 503 (Cal. 1979) Cited 44 timesHolding that if the trial court finds plaintiff's allegations that he performed work at defendant's urging—work that the parties had long negotiated—to be true, then "the principles of fairness support plaintiff's recovery for the reasonable value of his labor"
Rule 5 - Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers
Fed. R. Civ. P. 5 Cited 22,753 times 16 Legal AnalysesAllowing service by filing papers with the court's electronic-filing system
Section 452 - Allegations liberally construed
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 452 Cited 664 timesPleading "must be liberally construed, with a view to substantial justice between the parties"
Section 1013 - Requirements for service by mail
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1013 Cited 74 times(a) In case of service by mail, the notice or other paper shall be deposited in a post office, mailbox, subpost office, substation, or mail chute, or other like facility regularly maintained by the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope, with postage paid, addressed to the person on whom it is to be served, at the office address as last given by that person on any document filed in the cause and served on the party making service by mail; otherwise at that party's place of residence.