§Why CasetextPricing

Minute Order

undefined

18 Cited authorities

  1. Lazar v. Superior Court

    12 Cal.4th 631 (Cal. 1996)   Cited 1,689 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that justifiable reliance is a required element of a fraud claim

  2. Turner v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc.

    7 Cal.4th 1238 (Cal. 1994)   Cited 687 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"

  3. Tarmann v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

    2 Cal.App.4th 153 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 499 times
    Holding that, when suing a corporate defendant for fraud, a plaintiff must include “the names of the persons who made the allegedly fraudulent representations, their authority to speak, to whom they spoke, what they said or wrote, and when it was said or written”

  4. Daniels v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.

    246 Cal.App.4th 1150 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 233 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"

  5. Chapman v. Skype Inc.

    220 Cal.App.4th 217 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 205 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding that the plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim cannot be construed as a restitution claim because the plaintiff "does not allege that the subscription agreement is unenforceable or that she rescinds the agreement"

  6. Hawran v. Hixson

    209 Cal.App.4th 256 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 197 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the application of the common-interest privilege is ordinarily a question of law for the court

  7. Orcilla v. Big Sur, Inc.

    244 Cal.App.4th 982 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 123 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding a plaintiff pleaded exceptions to the tender ruling elsewhere in the complaint

  8. Alfaro v. Community Housing Improvement System & Planning Association, Inc.

    171 Cal.App.4th 1356 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 145 times
    Finding that it was not necessary for the Plaintiffs to allege the detailed minutiae of how, when, and where certain non-disclosures or concealment took place and that the details of the concealment were "properly the subject of discovery, not demurrer."

  9. 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."

  10. 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.