§Why CasetextPricing

Response Reply

undefined

14 Cited authorities

  1. John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States

    552 U.S. 130 (2008)   Cited 551 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding § 2501 jurisdictional

  2. Bickel v. City of Piedmont

    16 Cal.4th 1040 (Cal. 1997)   Cited 344 times
    In Bickel, the California Supreme Court held that an applicant could waive its right to deemed approval by cooperating with a lead agency's lengthy processing of its application.

  3. People v. Williams

    21 Cal.4th 335 (Cal. 1999)   Cited 216 times
    Holding that "[i]f the [appellate] court cannot determine from the available record whether the action is barred, it should . . . remand for a hearing"

  4. In re Toys “R” US-Delaware, Inc.

    295 F.R.D. 438 (C.D. Cal. 2014)   Cited 142 times
    Holding that, because each class member could have recovered between $100 and $1000, a $5 or $30 settlement award for each member's FCRA claim was "not a de minimis amount"

  5. Cowan v. Superior Court

    14 Cal.4th 367 (Cal. 1996)   Cited 194 times
    Holding that such statutes do not implicate fundamental subject matter jurisdiction

  6. Soltani v. Western Southern Life Ins. Co.

    258 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2001)   Cited 129 times
    Holding that a six-month statute-of-limitations provision was enforceable

  7. Consumer Adv. Group v. Exxonmobil Corp.

    168 Cal.App.4th 675 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 79 times
    In Consumer Advocacy Group, Inc. v. ExxonMobil Corp., 168 Cal. App. 4th 675, 680 (2008), the court found that a separate action did not bar the plaintiff's claim because the two actions did not address identical issues.

  8. Kullar v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc.

    168 Cal.App.4th 116 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 54 times   3 Legal Analyses
    In Kullar, there was "nothing" before the court to establish the sufficiency of the investigation other than an assurance from class counsel that "they had seen what they needed to see."

  9. Munoz v. BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Los Angeles

    186 Cal.App.4th 399 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 24 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Approving $5,000 incentive payment

  10. Luckey v. Superior Court

    228 Cal.App.4th 81 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 19 times
    In Luckey, as in this case, the parties engaged in mediation, resulting in a precertification class settlement of a consumer class action. (Luckey, supra, 228 Cal.App.4th at p. 90.)

  11. Rule 5 - Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 5   Cited 23,068 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Allowing service by filing papers with the court's electronic-filing system

  12. Section 2699.3 - Requirements for commencing civil action

    Cal. Lab. Code § 2699.3   Cited 293 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Requiring notice to LWDA by certified mail

  13. Section 1013 - Requirements for service by mail

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1013   Cited 78 times

    (a) In case of service by mail, the notice or other paper shall be deposited in a post office, mailbox, subpost office, substation, or mail chute, or other like facility regularly maintained by the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope, with postage paid, addressed to the person on whom it is to be served, at the office address as last given by that person on any document filed in the cause and served on the party making service by mail; otherwise at that party's place of residence.

  14. Section 1010.6 - Electronic service of document

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1010.6   Cited 41 times
    Authorizing trial courts to adopt local rules permitting electronic filing of documents