12 Cited authorities

Blank v. Kirwan
39 Cal.3d 311 (Cal. 1985) Cited 3,017 times
Holding that the standard for a failure to state a claim is whether "the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action"
City of Stockton v. Superior Court
42 Cal.4th 730 (Cal. 2007) Cited 645 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"
Janken v. GM Hughes Electronics
46 Cal.App.4th 55 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996) Cited 535 times
Holding that "[t]he intentional infliction of emotional distress claim fails" where "[t]he factual allegations . . . plead claims of discrimination" but not more
White v. Ultramar, Inc.
21 Cal.4th 563 (Cal. 1999) Cited 462 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that a single act of retaliatory termination demonstrated that a middle manager "determined corporate policy"
Ragland v. U.S. Bank National Association
209 Cal.App.4th 182 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) Cited 286 times
Holding that bank had no duty of care to borrower even when it "told [her] not to make her [monthly] loan payment in order to be considered for a loan modification"
Agarwal v. Johnson
25 Cal.3d 932 (Cal. 1979) Cited 476 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that Title VII claim was distinct primary right from defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims under state law
Singh v. Southland Stone, U.S.A., Inc.
186 Cal.App.4th 338 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) Cited 190 times 1 Legal Analyses
Concluding that special verdict that defendant made no misrepresentations was inconsistent with special verdict that defendant made intentional misrepresentations when both claims were based on same factual allegations
Fermino v. Fedco, Inc.
7 Cal.4th 701 (Cal. 1994) Cited 258 times
Holding that a claim of false imprisonment by an employer is always outside the scope of the compensation bargain
Alcorn v. Anbro Engineering, Inc.
2 Cal.3d 493 (Cal. 1970) Cited 507 times
Holding that plaintiff's race-based employment discrimination claim was not covered by Unruh Act
Yau v. Santa Margarita Ford, Inc.
229 Cal.App.4th 144 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) Cited 122 times 1 Legal Analyses
Ruling against a plaintiff who argued that a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress premised on conduct violating a fundamental public policy is an exception to the general preemption rule

Order After Hearing POS

12 Cited authorities

Holding that the standard for a failure to state a claim is whether "the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action"

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"

Holding that "[t]he intentional infliction of emotional distress claim fails" where "[t]he factual allegations . . . plead claims of discrimination" but not more

Holding that a single act of retaliatory termination demonstrated that a middle manager "determined corporate policy"

Holding that bank had no duty of care to borrower even when it "told [her] not to make her [monthly] loan payment in order to be considered for a loan modification"

Holding that Title VII claim was distinct primary right from defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims under state law

Concluding that special verdict that defendant made no misrepresentations was inconsistent with special verdict that defendant made intentional misrepresentations when both claims were based on same factual allegations

Holding that a claim of false imprisonment by an employer is always outside the scope of the compensation bargain

Holding that plaintiff's race-based employment discrimination claim was not covered by Unruh Act

Ruling against a plaintiff who argued that a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress premised on conduct violating a fundamental public policy is an exception to the general preemption rule