81 Cal.App.4th 39 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) Cited 484 times
Requiring party to "clearly and specifically set forth the ‘applicable substantive law’ and the legal basis for amendment, i.e., the elements of the cause of action and authority for it," and all specific factual allegations for the claim
Holding that the limitations period for an attorney malpractice claim does not begin to run until the plaintiff has suffered appreciable and actual harm
Holding "majority shareholders . . . have a fiduciary responsibility to the minority and to the corporation to use their ability to control the corporation in a fair, just, and equitable manner"
181 Cal.App.4th 102 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) Cited 106 times
Finding the court's power to deny a motion for summary judgment due to failure to comply with formatting requirements is "discretionary, not mandatory"
127 Cal.App.4th 305 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) Cited 86 times
Concluding that, applying either California or Delaware law, claim was derivative one brought on behalf of Delaware corporation for which the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 340.6 Cited 598 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that limitations period on plaintiff's legal malpractice action did not begin until plaintiff had suffered "appreciable harm" and "mere breach of . . . duty, causing only nominal damages, speculative harm, or the threat of future harm— not yet realized—does not suffice to create a cause of action for negligence"