14 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”
Allen v. City of Sacramento
234 Cal.App.4th 41 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) Cited 408 times
Holding allegation of "a wrongful arrest or detention, without more, does not" state a claim for violation of the Bane Act
Qualified Patients Association v. City of Anaheim
187 Cal.App.4th 734 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) Cited 103 times
Holding that enacting legislation does not convert a government entity into a "business establishment" for purposes of the act
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"
Lee v. Silveira
6 Cal.App.5th 527 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) Cited 43 times 1 Legal Analyses
Reversing trial court's denial of special motion to strike plaintiffs' declaratory relief claim
George v. Auto. Club of South. California
201 Cal.App.4th 1112 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) Cited 47 times
Applying rule, but finding no ambiguity
County of Del Norte v. City of Crescent City
71 Cal.App.4th 965 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999) Cited 55 times
Holding " permanent injunction is an equitable remedy, not a cause of action, and thus it is attendant to an underlying cause of action"
City of South Pasadena v. Department of Transportation
29 Cal.App.4th 1280 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994) Cited 62 times
In South Pasadena, the Third Appellate District held the abuse of discretion standard to be generally inappropriate in summary judgment proceedings: "'The only exception to the independent review standard applies when we review a trial court's exercise of discretion as allowed by Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (e).
Centex Homes v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co.
237 Cal.App.4th 23 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) Cited 21 times 2 Legal Analyses
In Centex Homes v. St. Paul, 237 Cal.App.4th 23 (2015), the developer argued that the insurer was required to appoint independent counsel.
Camp v. Board of Supervisors
123 Cal.App.3d 334 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981) Cited 75 times
In Camp, the court determined a preliminary injunction motion warranted a merits-based decision because the issue presented was one of law, it was resolved without extrinsic or additional evidence, and there was no purpose served by a trial on the action.
Section 12-6.001 - Application of Rules
Fla. Admin. Code R. 12-6.001 Cited 18 times
Stating a third cause of action for “violation of Plaintiffs' First Amendment Right because the policy is unconstitutionally vague and denies due process”

Hearing Demurrer

14 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”

Holding allegation of "a wrongful arrest or detention, without more, does not" state a claim for violation of the Bane Act

Holding that enacting legislation does not convert a government entity into a "business establishment" for purposes of the act

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"

Reversing trial court's denial of special motion to strike plaintiffs' declaratory relief claim

Applying rule, but finding no ambiguity

Holding " permanent injunction is an equitable remedy, not a cause of action, and thus it is attendant to an underlying cause of action"

In Centex Homes v. St. Paul, 237 Cal.App.4th 23 (2015), the developer argued that the insurer was required to appoint independent counsel.

In Camp, the court determined a preliminary injunction motion warranted a merits-based decision because the issue presented was one of law, it was resolved without extrinsic or additional evidence, and there was no purpose served by a trial on the action.

Stating a third cause of action for “violation of Plaintiffs' First Amendment Right because the policy is unconstitutionally vague and denies due process”