34 Cited authorities

Arias v. Superior Court (Angelo Dairy)
46 Cal.4th 969 (Cal. 2009) Cited 601 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding that proof of a Labor Code violation is a prerequisite to recovery of PAGA penalties
Quiroz v. Seventh Ave. Center
140 Cal.App.4th 1256 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) Cited 352 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding it was "irrelevant" that "fact" in separate statement of undisputed facts was undisputed by opposing party because "fact" was a legal conclusion
Doe v. City of Los Angeles
42 Cal.4th 531 (Cal. 2007) Cited 265 times
Holding courts construing California statutes "may not broaden or narrow the scope of the provision by reading into it language that does not appear in it or reading out of it language that does."
Duran v. U.S. Bank National Assn.
59 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 2014) Cited 186 times 16 Legal Analyses
Finding a flaw in the "size of the sample group" and holding, in general, that "[t]he more diverse the population, the larger the sample must be in order to reflect the population accurately"
Tellez v. Rich Voss Trucking, Inc.
240 Cal.App.4th 1052 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) Cited 96 times 1 Legal Analyses
H040375 09-30-2015 Miguel TELLEZ Plaintiff and Appellant, v. RICH VOSS TRUCKING, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents. Matern Law Group, Matthew J. Matern, Torrance, Rania S. Habib, Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant. Miller, Morton, Caillat & Nevis, David I. Kornbluh, Stephanie M. Rocha, San Jose, Courtney J. Rogerson, Counsel for Defendants/Respondents. ELIA, J. Matern Law Group, Matthew J. Matern, Torrance, Rania S. Habib, Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant. Miller, Morton, Caillat & Nevis, David
Casterson v. Superior Court
101 Cal.App.4th 177 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) Cited 102 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.
McAllister v. County of Monterey
147 Cal.App.4th 253 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) Cited 89 times 4 Legal Analyses
Concluding that the language regarding the time to respond to a complaint set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 430.40 is not mandatory, especially with respect to the time limit for demurring to an amended complaint
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"
Tucker v. Pacific Bell Mobile Services
208 Cal.App.4th 201 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) Cited 71 times 2 Legal Analyses
Finding the underlying facts in the complaint "indistinguishable" from those in which the "alleged misrepresentations were not uniformly made to proposed class members"
Blakemore v. Superior Court
129 Cal.App.4th 36 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) Cited 61 times 1 Legal Analyses
Nos. B174825, B175973 and B176780 May 6, 2005 CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 976(b) and 976.1, this opinion is certified for publication with the exception of parts I, II and III. Appeal from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Nos. BC292702 and BC292702, Wendell Mortimer, Jr., Judge. Huron Maki Johnson, Jeffrey Huron, Ann S. Lee and Brenda Barton-LeMay for Petitioners and for Plaintiffs and Appellants. No appearance for Respondent Superior Court
Rule 3.1322 - Motions to strike
Cal. R. 3.1322 Cited 10 times
(a) Contents of notice A notice of motion to strike a portion of a pleading must quote in full the portions sought to be stricken except where the motion is to strike an entire paragraph, cause of action, count, or defense. Specifications in a notice must be numbered consecutively. (b) Timing A notice of motion to strike must be given within the time allowed to plead, and if a demurrer is interposed, concurrently therewith, and must be noticed for hearing and heard at the same time as the demurrer

Minute Order

34 Cited authorities

Holding that proof of a Labor Code violation is a prerequisite to recovery of PAGA penalties

Holding it was "irrelevant" that "fact" in separate statement of undisputed facts was undisputed by opposing party because "fact" was a legal conclusion

Holding courts construing California statutes "may not broaden or narrow the scope of the provision by reading into it language that does not appear in it or reading out of it language that does."

Finding a flaw in the "size of the sample group" and holding, in general, that "[t]he more diverse the population, the larger the sample must be in order to reflect the population accurately"

Concluding that the language regarding the time to respond to a complaint set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 430.40 is not mandatory, especially with respect to the time limit for demurring to an amended complaint

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"

Finding the underlying facts in the complaint "indistinguishable" from those in which the "alleged misrepresentations were not uniformly made to proposed class members"