17 Cited authorities

Corning Glass Works v. Brennan
417 U.S. 188 (1974) Cited 1,424 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that an employer has the burden of proof to show that it falls within the stated exemption
Turner v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc.
7 Cal.4th 1238 (Cal. 1994) Cited 683 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that plaintiff's "claim of whistle-blower harassment fails because he cannot demonstrate the required nexus between his reporting of alleged statutory violations and his allegedly adverse treatment"
Hernandez v. City of Pomona
46 Cal.4th 501 (Cal. 2009) Cited 275 times
Holding that the standard of reasonableness applicable in a section 1983 action based on excessive force is the same as the standard of reasonableness applicable in a state law negligence action
Hawran v. Hixson
209 Cal.App.4th 256 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) Cited 194 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that the application of the common-interest privilege is ordinarily a question of law for the court
Krantz v. BT Visual Images
89 Cal.App.4th 164 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) Cited 154 times
Holding that a UCL claim will "rise or fall depending on the state of the antecedent substantive causes of action."
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"
Med. Marijuana, Inc. v. Projectcbd.com
46 Cal.App.5th 869 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) Cited 54 times
D074755 03-20-2020 MEDICAL MARIJUANA, INC., et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. PROJECTCBD.COM et al., Defendants and Appellants. Greenberg Traurig and Tyler R. Andrews, Irvine, for Defendants and Appellants. Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch, Kendra J. Hall and Michael R. Kiesling, San DIego, for Plaintiffs and Respondents. AARON, J. Greenberg Traurig and Tyler R. Andrews, Irvine, for Defendants and Appellants. Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch, Kendra J. Hall and Michael R. Kiesling, San
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
Simers v. L. A. Times Commc'ns, LLC
18 Cal.App.5th 1248 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) Cited 30 times 3 Legal Analyses
In Simers, "defendant's sole claim [was] that plaintiff 'did not experience an adverse employment action,' and so his discrimination claims 'fail as a matter of law.'"

Order Submitted Matter

17 Cited authorities

Holding that an employer has the burden of proof to show that it falls within the stated exemption

Holding that plaintiff's "claim of whistle-blower harassment fails because he cannot demonstrate the required nexus between his reporting of alleged statutory violations and his allegedly adverse treatment"

Holding that the standard of reasonableness applicable in a section 1983 action based on excessive force is the same as the standard of reasonableness applicable in a state law negligence action

Holding that the application of the common-interest privilege is ordinarily a question of law for the court

Holding that a UCL claim will "rise or fall depending on the state of the antecedent substantive causes of action."

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"

Applying rule, but finding no ambiguity

In Simers, "defendant's sole claim [was] that plaintiff 'did not experience an adverse employment action,' and so his discrimination claims 'fail as a matter of law.'"