§Why CasetextPricing

Statement Case Management Conference

undefined

4 Cited authorities

  1. Norgart v. Upjohn Co.

    21 Cal.4th 383 (Cal. 1999)   Cited 1,300 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the discovery rule "postpones accrual of a cause of action until the plaintiff discovers, or has reason to discover, the cause of action, until, that is, he at least suspects, or has reason to suspect, a factual basis for its elements"

  2. Barrington v. A. H. Robins Co.

    39 Cal.3d 146 (Cal. 1985)   Cited 87 times
    In Barrington, the California Supreme Court noted that "because the relation back rule has so far been confined to the statute of limitations," the court below "shrank" from applying the doctrine to this new context.

  3. Hoffman v. Blattner Energy, Inc.

    315 F.R.D. 324 (C.D. Cal. 2016)   Cited 9 times
    Finding numerosity satisfied where plaintiff identified 23 employees who were actual members of the subclass and presented evidence that there were 1,229 total employees because "it is reasonable for the Court to conclude that there are other employees out of 1,229 who fall within the proposed subclass"

  4. Goldman v. Wilsey Foods, Inc.

    216 Cal.App.3d 1085 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989)   Cited 30 times
    In Goldman v. Wilsey Foods, Inc. (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 1085, 1095 [ 265 Cal.Rptr. 294], the court explained the compromise nature of the workers' compensation system, stating that the: "California Constitution vested the Legislature with the plenary power to create a comprehensive workers' compensation system providing for a compulsory and exclusive scheme of employer liability without fault for employment-related injuries.