§Why CasetextPricing

Request Judicial Notice

undefined

15 Cited authorities

  1. Navellier v. Sletten

    29 Cal.4th 82 (Cal. 2002)   Cited 1,947 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding a claim for relief filed in federal district court is protected activity

  2. Rusheen v. Cohen

    37 Cal.4th 1048 (Cal. 2006)   Cited 1,169 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding California's litigation privilege precludes liability arising from noncommunicative acts that are necessarily related to enforcing a judgment

  3. Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope Opportunity

    19 Cal.4th 1106 (Cal. 1999)   Cited 1,083 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that anti-SLAPP motions brought "to strike a cause of action arising from a statement made before, or in connection with an issue under consideration by, a legally authorized official proceeding need not separately demonstrate that the statement concerned an issue of public significance."

  4. Reichardt v. Hoffman

    52 Cal.App.4th 754 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 623 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that absent an exceptional showing of good cause, an appellate court will not address issues raised for the first time in a reply brief

  5. Goodman v. Kennedy

    18 Cal.3d 335 (Cal. 1976)   Cited 613 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"

  6. Rubenstein v. Rubenstein

    81 Cal.App.4th 1131 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 263 times
    Rejecting res judicata defense to motion to modify

  7. REO Broadcasting Consultants v. Martin

    69 Cal.App.4th 489 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 131 times
    Refusing to entertain argument raised for first time in reply brief

  8. Align Technology, Inc. v. Tran

    179 Cal.App.4th 949 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 80 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"

  9. 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

  10. People v. Persolve, LLC

    218 Cal.App.4th 1267 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 24 times
    Holding that UCL claims based on conduct that is specifically prohibited by the FDCPA are not barred by the litigation privilege

  11. Section 451 - Matters requiring judicial notice

    Cal. Evid. Code § 451   Cited 862 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Asserting when "[j]udicial notice shall be taken."