15 Cited authorities

In re Marriage of Falcone & Fyke
164 Cal.App.4th 814 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) Cited 852 times
Affirming $64,500 sanctions order against Kathey for prosecuting contempt motion without any factual or legal basis and pursuit of a meritless motion for new trial
Spinks v. Equity Residential Briarwood Apartments
171 Cal.App.4th 1004 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) Cited 308 times 1 Legal Analyses
Reversing fee award where summary judgment is reversed
Artiglio v. Corning, Inc.
18 Cal.4th 604 (Cal. 1998) Cited 311 times 1 Legal Analyses
In Artiglio, the California Supreme Court noted that "many years elapsed between Dow Chemical's seminal toxicology research activities on behalf of Dow Corning and plaintiffs' alleged injuries.
Paz v. State
22 Cal.4th 550 (Cal. 2000) Cited 138 times
Holding that the negligent undertaking theory of liability was implicated where plaintiff alleged that defendant breached its contractual obligation to a third party
Taylor v. Superior Court
24 Cal.3d 890 (Cal. 1979) Cited 242 times
In Taylor, the California Supreme Court examined whether the act of driving while intoxicated constituted malice for the purposes of a CC § 3294 punitive damages award.
American Airlines v. Sheppard
96 Cal.App.4th 1017 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) Cited 106 times
Holding that although defendants had been "disingenuous" and acted with "willful and conscious disregard" of the plaintiff's interests, their conduct did not "reach the level of despicability found in cases in which punitive damages were found to be proper"
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"
Mock v. Michigan Millers Mutual Insurance
4 Cal.App.4th 306 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992) Cited 122 times
Explaining that "clear and convincing" requires a finding of high probability; that the evidence be "so clear as to leave no substantial doubt"; or that the evidence be "sufficiently strong to command the unhesitating assent of every reasonable mind."
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
Turman v. Turning Point of Central California, Inc.
191 Cal.App.4th 53 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) Cited 43 times 1 Legal Analyses
Requiring facts pled in the complaint to "rise to the level of malice, oppression or fraud necessary under Civil Code section 3294 to state a claim for punitive damages"
Section 2-30.001 - Written Statement Explaining Consumer Rights Under Chapter 681, Florida Statutes; Hearings Before Florida New Motor Vehicle Arbitration Board
Fla. Admin. Code R. 2-30.001 Cited 58 times
(1) The following documents are incorporated into these rules by reference and can each be obtained by visiting the applicable web address shown below, where available, or by contacting the address shown in subsection (4): (a) The form entitled "Manufacturer's Answer, " DLA/LL-006 (rev. 2/06), effective 2-1-06. (b) The forms entitled "Consumer's Prehearing Information Sheet DLA/LL-007, (rev. 02/2023), effective 2-1-2023, available at http://www.flrules.org/Gateway/reference.asp?No=Ref-14995 and Manufacturer's

Hearing Motion to Strike

15 Cited authorities

Affirming $64,500 sanctions order against Kathey for prosecuting contempt motion without any factual or legal basis and pursuit of a meritless motion for new trial

Reversing fee award where summary judgment is reversed

In Artiglio, the California Supreme Court noted that "many years elapsed between Dow Chemical's seminal toxicology research activities on behalf of Dow Corning and plaintiffs' alleged injuries.

Holding that the negligent undertaking theory of liability was implicated where plaintiff alleged that defendant breached its contractual obligation to a third party

In Taylor, the California Supreme Court examined whether the act of driving while intoxicated constituted malice for the purposes of a CC § 3294 punitive damages award.

Holding that although defendants had been "disingenuous" and acted with "willful and conscious disregard" of the plaintiff's interests, their conduct did not "reach the level of despicability found in cases in which punitive damages were found to be proper"

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"

Explaining that "clear and convincing" requires a finding of high probability; that the evidence be "so clear as to leave no substantial doubt"; or that the evidence be "sufficiently strong to command the unhesitating assent of every reasonable mind."

Applying rule, but finding no ambiguity

Requiring facts pled in the complaint to "rise to the level of malice, oppression or fraud necessary under Civil Code section 3294 to state a claim for punitive damages"