§Why CasetextPricing

Order Submitted Matter

undefined

14 Cited authorities

  1. People ex rel. Lockyer v. Shamrock Foods Co.

    24 Cal.4th 415 (Cal. 2000)   Cited 567 times

    S082325 Filed November 6, 2000 Appeal from Superior Court, San Diego County, No. 702204, Robert J. O'Neill, Judge, Ct.App. 4/1 D031041, Review Granted, 73 Cal.App.4th 1396. DeCuir Somach, Somach, Simmons Dunn, Michael E. Vergara; Blodgett, Makechnie Vetne, John H. Vetne; Landels Ripley Diamond, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes Lerach and Sanford Svetcov for Defendant and Appellant. Daniel E. Lungren and Bill Lockyer, Attorneys General, George Williamson, Roderick E. Walston and Richard M. Frank, Chief

  2. Toho-Towa Co. v. Morgan Creek Prods., Inc.

    217 Cal.App.4th 1096 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 124 times
    In Toho-Towa Co., Ltd. v. Morgan Creek Prods., Inc., 217 Cal. App. 4th 1096, 1110, 159 Cal.Rptr.3d 469 (2013), the court held that a defendant and its alleged alter-ego were in fact part of a single business enterprise, and that it would be inequitable to uphold their separate corporate status because the two business entities had structured their financial operations in such a way that left the defendant with no funds to pay its liabilities.

  3. Casterson v. Superior Court

    101 Cal.App.4th 177 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 101 times
    In Casterson, the plaintiff asserted section 35330's immunity should not be construed to protect a district's employee for injuries caused by the employee's negligence during the field trip because subdivision (d) did not expressly cover employees, while other provisions of the Education Code limiting liability for personal injuries did expressly cover employees.

  4. Align Technology, Inc. v. Tran

    179 Cal.App.4th 949 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 79 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"

  5. Brown v. Ralphs Grocery Co.

    28 Cal.App.5th 824 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018)   Cited 53 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the legislative intent behind PAGA foreclosed the availability of equitable tolling

  6. 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

  7. Hedwall v. PCMV, LLC

    22 Cal.App.5th 564 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018)   Cited 36 times
    Denying leave to amend where plaintiff "identifie[d] no new allegations supporting the possibility of amending the [complaint] to cure its defects, and no legal authority showing the viability of any potential causes of action against [defendant]"

  8. Esparza v. Safeway, Inc.

    36 Cal.App.5th 42 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019)   Cited 28 times
    Holding that "[c]ourts ... may use the end of employment as shorthand for the most recent time at which a cause of action may have accrued" but no authority suggests that "a PAGA cause of action accrues because of the end of employment"

  9. Alexander v. Cmty. Hosp. of Long Beach

    46 Cal.App.5th 238 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 27 times
    In Alexander, the plaintiffs alleged that if the employer defendant had conducted a thorough background check, the employer would have discovered the employee had a history of sexual harassment at prior jobs.

  10. Theo Chen v. Paypal, Inc.

    61 Cal.App.5th 559 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021)   Cited 21 times
    Affirming dismissal of the complaint because "by having consented to the user agreement, which expressly assigns any interest on the pooled funds to PayPal, appellants cannot assert a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty arising out of that practice" and similarly cannot "frame PayPal's practice as ‘conversion’ of their funds" because they assented to the taking