§Why CasetextPricing

Opposition Objections

undefined

39 Cited authorities

  1. AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion

    563 U.S. 333 (2011)   Cited 3,908 times   602 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a ban on collective-action waivers in those contracts worked to "disfavor arbitration"

  2. Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc.

    24 Cal.4th 83 (Cal. 2000)   Cited 1,806 times   46 Legal Analyses
    Holding unilateral arbitration provision substantively unconscionable

  3. State v. Superior Court

    32 Cal.4th 1234 (Cal. 2004)   Cited 1,394 times
    Holding that "failure to allege facts demonstrating or excusing compliance with the claim presentation requirement subjects a claim against a public entity to a demurrer for failure to state a cause of action"

  4. City of Stockton v. Superior Court

    42 Cal.4th 730 (Cal. 2007)   Cited 670 times
    Holding that contract claims are subject to the CTCA's presentment requirement; adding that the CTCA is better referred to as the Government Claims Act "to reduce confusion"

  5. Discover Bank v. Superior Court

    36 Cal.4th 148 (Cal. 2005)   Cited 477 times   70 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, under some circumstances, class action waivers in consumer arbitration agreements are unconscionable

  6. Rakestraw v. California Physicians' Service

    81 Cal.App.4th 39 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 486 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

  7. Stirlen v. Supercuts, Inc.

    51 Cal.App.4th 1519 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 332 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the element of procedural unconscionability is established where the challenged clause is part of a contract of adhesion

  8. DiCampli-Mintz v. County of Santa Clara

    55 Cal.4th 983 (Cal. 2012)   Cited 178 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding plaintiff failed to comply with Government Claims Act where government claim was never presented or delivered to the statutorily designated recipient

  9. Flores v. Transamerica HomeFirst, Inc.

    93 Cal.App.4th 846 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 220 times
    Holding that generic arbitration clauses contained in loan agreement and deed of trust constituted a contract of adhesion because offered without opportunity for negotiation

  10. Alcorn v. Anbro Engineering, Inc.

    2 Cal.3d 493 (Cal. 1970)   Cited 513 times
    Holding that plaintiff's race-based employment discrimination claim was not covered by Unruh Act

  11. Section 905 - Presentment of claims

    Cal. Gov. Code § 905   Cited 935 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Providing that "all claims for money or damages against local public entities" must "be presented in accordance with ... Section 910," except for certain situations that do not apply in this case

  12. Section 436 - Authority of court upon motion

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 436   Cited 312 times
    Authorizing the court to strike irrelevant, false, or improper matter from a pleading

  13. Section 437 - Grounds for motion to appear on face of challenged pleading; motion based on matter subject to judicial notice

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 437   Cited 290 times   3 Legal Analyses

    (a) The grounds for a motion to strike shall appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice. (b) Where the motion to strike is based on matter of which the court may take judicial notice pursuant to Section 452 or 453 of the Evidence Code, such matter shall be specified in the notice of motion, or in the supporting points and authorities, except as the court may otherwise permit. Ca. Civ. Proc. Code § 437 Added by Stats. 1982