19 Cited authorities

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
McBride v. Boughton
123 Cal.App.4th 379 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) Cited 487 times
Holding that common count will "stand or fall" with cause of action seeking the same recovery
Fremont Indemnity Co. v. Fremont General Corp.
148 Cal.App.4th 97 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) Cited 362 times
Holding a net operating loss as intangible property
Daniels v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.
246 Cal.App.4th 1150 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) Cited 232 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding complaint failed to adequately plead successor liability at California's demurrer stage where it did not allege that the defendant "purchased or otherwise acquired [the corporation's] principal assets"
Jogani v. Superior Court (Haresh Jogani)
165 Cal.App.4th 901 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) Cited 156 times
Concluding that at the time of the adoption of the California Constitution in 1850 quantum meruit was an action at law
Voris v. Lampert
7 Cal.5th 1141 (Cal. 2019) Cited 96 times 1 Legal Analyses
Rejecting a conversion claim for nonpayment of wages when the availability of such a claim would "transform a category of contract claims into torts, and pile additional measures of tort damages on top of statutory recovery"
Sosinsky v. Grant
6 Cal.App.4th 1548 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992) Cited 194 times
Holding it improper to take judicial notice of the truth of a court's factual findings where principles of res judicata or collateral estoppel do not apply
Forcellati v. Hyland's, Inc.
876 F. Supp. 2d 1155 (C.D. Cal. 2012) Cited 83 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding "we agree with the numerous recent decisions that have concluded that Defendants' argument is better taken under the lens of typicality or adequacy of representation, rather than standing"
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.
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"

Order Submitted Matter

19 Cited authorities

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

Holding that common count will "stand or fall" with cause of action seeking the same recovery

Holding a net operating loss as intangible property

Holding complaint failed to adequately plead successor liability at California's demurrer stage where it did not allege that the defendant "purchased or otherwise acquired [the corporation's] principal assets"

Concluding that at the time of the adoption of the California Constitution in 1850 quantum meruit was an action at law

Rejecting a conversion claim for nonpayment of wages when the availability of such a claim would "transform a category of contract claims into torts, and pile additional measures of tort damages on top of statutory recovery"

Holding it improper to take judicial notice of the truth of a court's factual findings where principles of res judicata or collateral estoppel do not apply

Holding "we agree with the numerous recent decisions that have concluded that Defendants' argument is better taken under the lens of typicality or adequacy of representation, rather than standing"

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"