19 Cited authorities

Lazar v. Superior Court
12 Cal.4th 631 (Cal. 1996) Cited 1,691 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that justifiable reliance is a required element of a fraud claim
Turner v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc.
7 Cal.4th 1238 (Cal. 1994) Cited 688 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"
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”
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"
Chapman v. Skype Inc.
220 Cal.App.4th 217 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) Cited 207 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"
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
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."
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 55 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

Order

19 Cited authorities

Holding that justifiable reliance is a required element of a fraud claim

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, 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”

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"

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"

Holding a plaintiff pleaded exceptions to the tender ruling elsewhere in the complaint

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."

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"