23 Cited authorities

Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc.
24 Cal.4th 317 (Cal. 2000) Cited 3,339 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that an implied covenant "cannot be endowed with an existence independent of its contractual underpinnings. It cannot impose substantive duties or limits on the contracting parties beyond those incorporated in the specific terms of their agreement."
Blank v. Kirwan
39 Cal.3d 311 (Cal. 1985) Cited 3,111 times
Holding that the standard for a failure to state a claim is whether "the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action"
Lazar v. Superior Court
12 Cal.4th 631 (Cal. 1996) Cited 1,707 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that justifiable reliance is a required element of a fraud claim
Small v. Fritz Cos., Inc.
30 Cal.4th 167 (Cal. 2003) Cited 641 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that complaint for negligent misrepresentation in a holder action must be "pled with the same specificity required in a holder's action for fraud."
Apollo Capital Fund Llc. v. Roth Capital Partners, LLC
158 Cal.App.4th 226 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) Cited 316 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that a securities "placement agent" employed by the issuing company was not liable because the issuing company did not transfer the securities to the plaintiffs
Goodman v. Kennedy
18 Cal.3d 335 (Cal. 1976) Cited 620 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that defendant attorney owed no duty to third parties who relied on faulty advice the attorney gave his clients "in the absence of any showing that the legal advice was foreseeably transmitted to or relied upon by plaintiffs or that plaintiffs were intended beneficiaries of a transaction to which the advice pertained"
Cadlo v. Owens-Illinois, Inc.
125 Cal.App.4th 513 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) Cited 232 times
Finding that for fraud, a plaintiff "must allege the specifics of his or her reliance on the misrepresentation to show a bona fide claim of actual reliance."
Serrano v. Priest
5 Cal.3d 584 (Cal. 1971) Cited 540 times
Holding that the structure of the education funding system in California denied students equal protection
Barnett v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co.
90 Cal.App.4th 500 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) Cited 189 times
Finding a potential for coverage for defamation even though the underlying action did not allege all of the elements of that cause of action
Service by Medallion, Inc. v. Clorox Co.
44 Cal.App.4th 1807 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996) Cited 137 times
Cleaning company's purchase of materials in preparation for performing contractual promise "were essential to its subsequent performance of the service agreement and therefore could not have been considered detrimental"
Rule 2.1 - Title
Cal. R. 2.1
The rules in this title may be referred to as the Trial Court Rules. Cal. R. Ct. 2.1 Rule 2.1 adopted effective 1/1/2007.

Memorandum Points and Authorities

23 Cited authorities

Holding that an implied covenant "cannot be endowed with an existence independent of its contractual underpinnings. It cannot impose substantive duties or limits on the contracting parties beyond those incorporated in the specific terms of their agreement."

Holding that the standard for a failure to state a claim is whether "the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action"

Holding that justifiable reliance is a required element of a fraud claim

Holding that complaint for negligent misrepresentation in a holder action must be "pled with the same specificity required in a holder's action for fraud."

Holding that a securities "placement agent" employed by the issuing company was not liable because the issuing company did not transfer the securities to the plaintiffs

Finding that for fraud, a plaintiff "must allege the specifics of his or her reliance on the misrepresentation to show a bona fide claim of actual reliance."

Holding that the structure of the education funding system in California denied students equal protection

Finding a potential for coverage for defamation even though the underlying action did not allege all of the elements of that cause of action

Cleaning company's purchase of materials in preparation for performing contractual promise "were essential to its subsequent performance of the service agreement and therefore could not have been considered detrimental"