19 Cited authorities

City of Stockton v. Superior Court
42 Cal.4th 730 (Cal. 2007) Cited 670 times
Holding that contract claims are subject to the CTCA's presentment requirement; adding that the CTCA is better referred to as the Government Claims Act "to reduce confusion"
Berkley v. Dowds
152 Cal.App.4th 518 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) Cited 207 times
Holding that the statute "does not create a cause of action as such, but provides for attorney fees, costs and punitive damages under certain conditions"
Cochran v. Cochran
65 Cal.App.4th 488 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) Cited 262 times
Holding that a defendant's conduct is "extreme or outrageous" when a reasonable person would exclaim "outrageous!" upon hearing of the defendant's actions
Carlsen v. Koivumaki
227 Cal.App.4th 879 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) Cited 122 times
Holding speculation as to what caused victim to fall off cliff was not evidence sufficient to create triable issue of material fact, affirming grant of summary adjudication of assault and battery claim
Plotnik v. Meihaus
208 Cal.App.4th 1590 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) Cited 125 times
Holding that the court determines whether severe emotional distress can be found, but the jury determines whether severe emotional distress exists
Gentry v. Ebay, Inc.
99 Cal.App.4th 816 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) Cited 156 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that website is an interactive computer service
Ross v. Creel Printing Publishing Company
100 Cal.App.4th 736 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) Cited 135 times
Denying request for judicial notice in reply brief
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"
Doe v. U.S. Youth Soccer Ass'n, Inc.
8 Cal.App.5th 1118 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017) Cited 52 times
Noting that if courts find a special relationship, they go on to "balance the policy factors set forth in Rowland to assist in their determination of the existence and scope of a defendant's duty in a particular case"
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

Order Submitted Matter

19 Cited authorities

Holding that contract claims are subject to the CTCA's presentment requirement; adding that the CTCA is better referred to as the Government Claims Act "to reduce confusion"

Holding that the statute "does not create a cause of action as such, but provides for attorney fees, costs and punitive damages under certain conditions"

Holding that a defendant's conduct is "extreme or outrageous" when a reasonable person would exclaim "outrageous!" upon hearing of the defendant's actions

Holding speculation as to what caused victim to fall off cliff was not evidence sufficient to create triable issue of material fact, affirming grant of summary adjudication of assault and battery claim

Holding that the court determines whether severe emotional distress can be found, but the jury determines whether severe emotional distress exists

Holding that website is an interactive computer service

Denying request for judicial notice in reply brief

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"

Noting that if courts find a special relationship, they go on to "balance the policy factors set forth in Rowland to assist in their determination of the existence and scope of a defendant's duty in a particular case"

Applying rule, but finding no ambiguity