§Why CasetextPricing

Notice Entry of Order

undefined

14 Cited authorities

  1. Tellez v. Rich Voss Trucking, Inc.

    240 Cal.App.4th 1052 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 96 times   1 Legal Analyses

    H040375 09-30-2015 Miguel TELLEZ Plaintiff and Appellant, v. RICH VOSS TRUCKING, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents. Matern Law Group, Matthew J. Matern, Torrance, Rania S. Habib, Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant. Miller, Morton, Caillat & Nevis, David I. Kornbluh, Stephanie M. Rocha, San Jose, Courtney J. Rogerson, Counsel for Defendants/Respondents. ELIA, J. Matern Law Group, Matthew J. Matern, Torrance, Rania S. Habib, Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant. Miller, Morton, Caillat & Nevis, David

  2. 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.

  3. 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"

  4. Tucker v. Pacific Bell Mobile Services

    208 Cal.App.4th 201 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 71 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding the underlying facts in the complaint "indistinguishable" from those in which the "alleged misrepresentations were not uniformly made to proposed class members"

  5. 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

  6. Bridgeford v. Pacific Health Corp.

    202 Cal.App.4th 1034 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 40 times   3 Legal Analyses
    In Bridgeford, the court found Smith ’s reasoning persuasive and concluded, as a matter of California law, that "the denial of class certification cannot establish collateral estoppel against unnamed putative class members on any issue."

  7. Newell v. State Farm General Ins. Co.

    118 Cal.App.4th 1094 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 51 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Denying class certification to earthquake victims, plaintiffs fail to satisfy commonality and typicality requirements

  8. Theo Chen v. Paypal, Inc.

    61 Cal.App.5th 559 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021)   Cited 21 times
    Affirming dismissal of the complaint because "by having consented to the user agreement, which expressly assigns any interest on the pooled funds to PayPal, appellants cannot assert a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty arising out of that practice" and similarly cannot "frame PayPal's practice as ‘conversion’ of their funds" because they assented to the taking

  9. Basurco v. 21st Century Ins. Co.

    108 Cal.App.4th 110 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 42 times
    Affirming the denial of class action status in cases involving earthquake damages because the existence, cause, and extent of property damages and any recovery would necessarily have to be determined "on a case-by-case basis"

  10. In re BCBG Overtime Cases

    163 Cal.App.4th 1293 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 20 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In BCBG Overtime, the Fourth District relied on a case decided more than 20 years before the adoption of the California Rules of Court addressing class actions to conclude the putative class action may be defeated by a demurrer or motion to strike "if the defects in the class action allegations appear on the face of the complaint or by matter subject to judicial notice."