§Why CasetextPricing

Demurrer With Motion To Strike Ccp 43010

Motion

17 Cited authorities

  1. 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"

  2. Beck Development Co. v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co.

    44 Cal.App.4th 1160 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 345 times
    Holding that three-year statute of limitations applies to private nuisances

  3. Goodman v. Kennedy

    18 Cal.3d 335 (Cal. 1976)   Cited 613 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that defendant attorney owed no duty to third parties who relied on faulty advice the attorney gave his clients "in the absence of any showing that the legal advice was foreseeably transmitted to or relied upon by plaintiffs or that plaintiffs were intended beneficiaries of a transaction to which the advice pertained"

  4. Harris v. Rudin, Richman Appel

    74 Cal.App.4th 299 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 149 times
    Holding that if a claim is based upon an "alleged breach of a written contract, the terms must be set out verbatim in the body of the complaint or a copy of the written agreement must be attached and incorporated by reference"

  5. Green Valley Landowners Association v. City of Vallejo

    241 Cal.App.4th 425 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 68 times
    Reciting standard of review

  6. Williams v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles

    121 Cal.App.4th 708 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 90 times
    Finding plaintiff was not required to exhaust for a FEHA-related, non-statutory claim for wrongful termination

  7. Banis Restaurant Design, Inc. v. Serrano

    134 Cal.App.4th 1035 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 83 times
    Suggesting that severability is inappropriate

  8. Young v. Gannon

    97 Cal.App.4th 209 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 81 times

    B146236 Filed February 27, 2002; Certified for Publication March 28, 2002 Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. BS061675, Dzintra Janavs, Judge. Affirmed. Spiro Moss Barness Harrison and Dennis F. Moss for Plaintiff and Appellant. John M. Rea, Chief Counsel, Vanessa L. Holton, Assistant Chief Counsel, and Frank Nelson Adkins and Sarah L. Cohen, Counsel, for Defendant and Respondent and Real Part in Interest. SPENCER, P.J. INTRODUCTION John D. Young appeals from a

  9. Sanai v. Saltz

    170 Cal.App.4th 746 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 62 times
    Holding § 1785.25 not preempted

  10. Mead v. Sanwa Bank California

    61 Cal.App.4th 561 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 71 times
    Charting history in California of rule that if creditor knew party was acting as surety, then creditor was bound to treat party as surety

  11. Rule 2.251 - Electronic service

    Cal. R. 2.251   Cited 15 times

    (a)Authorization for electronic service When a document may be served by mail, express mail, overnight delivery, or fax transmission, the document may be served electronically under Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6, Penal Code section 690.5, and the rules in this chapter. For purposes of electronic service made pursuant to Penal Code section 690.5, express consent to electronic service is required.[]= (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2022; previously amended effective January 1, 2007

  12. Rule 2.306 - Service of papers by fax transmission

    Cal. R. 2.306   Cited 12 times

    (a) Service by fax (1)Agreement of parties required Service by fax transmission is permitted only if the parties agree and a written confirmation of that agreement is made. (2)Service on last-given fax number Any notice or other document to be served must be transmitted to a fax machine maintained by the person on whom it is served at the fax machine telephone number as last given by that person on any document that the party has filed in the case and served on the party making service. (b) Service