14 Cited authorities

Medimmune, Inc. v. GenenTech, Inc.
549 U.S. 118 (2007) Cited 2,652 times 91 Legal Analyses
Holding "the phrase 'case of actual controversy' in the Act refers to the types of 'Cases' and 'Controversies' that are justiciable under Article III"
Hughes v. Pair
46 Cal.4th 1035 (Cal. 2009) Cited 1,008 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that discomfort, worry, anxiety, upset stomach, concern, and agitation did not establish severe emotional distress
Lyle v. Warner Brothers Television Productions
38 Cal.4th 264 (Cal. 2006) Cited 474 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that "California courts have adopted the same standard as [Title VII] for hostile work environment sexual harassment claims."
Arteaga v. Brink's, Inc.
163 Cal.App.4th 327 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) Cited 336 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that elements of a common law disability discrimination claim are the same as those of a FEHA claim
Fisher v. San Pedro Peninsula Hosp.
214 Cal.App.3d 590 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989) Cited 508 times
Holding that despite sufficiently pled sexual harassment by a physician, plaintiff must also sufficiently plead employer ratified acts to plead prayer for punitive damages against employer
Faust v. California Portland Cement Co.
150 Cal.App.4th 864 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) Cited 251 times 2 Legal Analyses
Finding fact issue on plaintiff's FEHA disability discrimination claim with respect to employer's knowledge where a physician's work status report advised employer that plaintiff was "unable to perform regular job duties..."
Alcorn v. Anbro Engineering, Inc.
2 Cal.3d 493 (Cal. 1970) Cited 516 times
Holding that plaintiff's race-based employment discrimination claim was not covered by Unruh Act
Sada v. Robert F. Kennedy Medical Center
56 Cal.App.4th 138 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) Cited 192 times
Holding that because employer did not establish as a matter of law that it took adverse employment action for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason, trial court erred in granting summary judgment to employer
Hager v. County of Los Angeles
228 Cal.App.4th 1538 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) Cited 41 times 5 Legal Analyses
Finding Huffman inconsistent with California law and holding that "a report of wrongdoing by a public employee to the very person who is engaged in the wrongdoing is covered by [ section 1102.5(b) ]"
Cole v. Antelope Valley Union High School Dist.
47 Cal.App.4th 1505 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996) Cited 69 times
Holding that the plaintiff could not bring an FEHA action against two codefendants in the case since he had not named in his DFEH complaint
Section 2201 - Creation of remedy
28 U.S.C. § 2201 Cited 25,124 times 63 Legal Analyses
Granting district courts the authority to create a remedy with the force of a final judgment
Section 1601 - Congressional findings and declaration of purpose
15 U.S.C. § 1601 Cited 7,933 times 55 Legal Analyses
Explaining that TILA's disclosure requirements exist “so that the consumer will be able to compare more readily the various credit terms available to him and avoid the uninformed use of credit”

Declaration In Support

14 Cited authorities

Holding "the phrase 'case of actual controversy' in the Act refers to the types of 'Cases' and 'Controversies' that are justiciable under Article III"

Holding that discomfort, worry, anxiety, upset stomach, concern, and agitation did not establish severe emotional distress

Holding that "California courts have adopted the same standard as [Title VII] for hostile work environment sexual harassment claims."

Holding that elements of a common law disability discrimination claim are the same as those of a FEHA claim

Holding that despite sufficiently pled sexual harassment by a physician, plaintiff must also sufficiently plead employer ratified acts to plead prayer for punitive damages against employer

Finding fact issue on plaintiff's FEHA disability discrimination claim with respect to employer's knowledge where a physician's work status report advised employer that plaintiff was "unable to perform regular job duties..."

Holding that plaintiff's race-based employment discrimination claim was not covered by Unruh Act

Holding that because employer did not establish as a matter of law that it took adverse employment action for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason, trial court erred in granting summary judgment to employer

Finding Huffman inconsistent with California law and holding that "a report of wrongdoing by a public employee to the very person who is engaged in the wrongdoing is covered by [ section 1102.5(b) ]"

Holding that the plaintiff could not bring an FEHA action against two codefendants in the case since he had not named in his DFEH complaint

Granting district courts the authority to create a remedy with the force of a final judgment

Explaining that TILA's disclosure requirements exist “so that the consumer will be able to compare more readily the various credit terms available to him and avoid the uninformed use of credit”