16 Cited authorities

Medimmune, Inc. v. GenenTech, Inc.
549 U.S. 118 (2007) Cited 2,663 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 1,013 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
Green v. State
42 Cal.4th 254 (Cal. 2007) Cited 298 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that the FEHA protects only employees with a disability who can perform the essential duties of the job with reasonable accommodation
Fisher v. San Pedro Peninsula Hosp.
214 Cal.App.3d 590 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989) Cited 509 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
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
Thompson v. City of Monrovia
186 Cal.App.4th 860 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) Cited 136 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that plaintiff's failure to file a DFEH complaint for more than one year after alleged racial incidents precluded FEHA claims
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
Mize-Kurzman v. Marin Community College Dist.
202 Cal.App.4th 832 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) Cited 109 times 2 Legal Analyses
Rejecting similar claim as to Lab. Code, § 1102.5, and rejecting Huffman, "it cannot categorically be stated that a report to a supervisor in the normal course of duties is not a protected disclosure"
Section 2201 - Creation of remedy
28 U.S.C. § 2201 Cited 25,173 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 7,941 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

16 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 the FEHA protects only employees with a disability who can perform the essential duties of the job with reasonable accommodation

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

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

Holding that plaintiff's failure to file a DFEH complaint for more than one year after alleged racial incidents precluded FEHA claims

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

Rejecting similar claim as to Lab. Code, § 1102.5, and rejecting Huffman, "it cannot categorically be stated that a report to a supervisor in the normal course of duties is not a protected disclosure"

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”