13 Cited authorities

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
Eastburn v. Regional Fire Protection Auth.
31 Cal.4th 1175 (Cal. 2003) Cited 226 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that "direct tort liability of public entities must be based on a specific statute declaring them to be liable, or at least creating some specific duty of care" other than the general duty of ordinary care found in California Civil Code § 1714
Guzman v. County of Monterey
46 Cal.4th 887 (Cal. 2009) Cited 118 times
Finding no liability under the Safe Drinking Water Act based on an implied duty to notify customers, where the only directive imposed by the statute was a duty to review a water system's monitoring reports
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.
McAllister v. County of Monterey
147 Cal.App.4th 253 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) Cited 89 times 4 Legal Analyses
Concluding that the language regarding the time to respond to a complaint set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 430.40 is not mandatory, especially with respect to the time limit for demurring to an amended complaint
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"
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
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
Lehto v. City of Oxnard
171 Cal.App.3d 285 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985) Cited 40 times
Holding that allegations of negligence based on a failure to follow state statutory and decisional law and city enactments, regulations and customs were insufficient because no specific enactment was alleged to have been violated
Glennen v. Allergan, Inc.
247 Cal.App.4th 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) Cited 4 times 2 Legal Analyses
In Allergan, the District Court for the District of New Jersey simply included Pennsylvania in a list of jurisdictions that ostensibly allow a failure to warn claim based on a device manufacturer's inadequate reporting to the FDA under state law tort principles.
Section 1081 - Minimum Standards for Legislatively Mandated Courses
Cal. Code Regs. tit. 11 § 1081 Cited 1 times
(a) Legislatively mandated courses, as specified in Commission Regulation 1005(f), pertain to training mandated by the Legislature for various kinds of peace officers and other groups for which the Commission has responsibility to establish minimum standards. The Commission may approve legislatively mandated courses that can be completed in fewer than the minimum hours. In such cases, the courses must be competency-based, where each student demonstrates mastery of clearly specified learning outcomes

Minute Order

13 Cited authorities

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 "direct tort liability of public entities must be based on a specific statute declaring them to be liable, or at least creating some specific duty of care" other than the general duty of ordinary care found in California Civil Code § 1714

Finding no liability under the Safe Drinking Water Act based on an implied duty to notify customers, where the only directive imposed by the statute was a duty to review a water system's monitoring reports

Concluding that the language regarding the time to respond to a complaint set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 430.40 is not mandatory, especially with respect to the time limit for demurring to an amended complaint

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

Holding that allegations of negligence based on a failure to follow state statutory and decisional law and city enactments, regulations and customs were insufficient because no specific enactment was alleged to have been violated

In Allergan, the District Court for the District of New Jersey simply included Pennsylvania in a list of jurisdictions that ostensibly allow a failure to warn claim based on a device manufacturer's inadequate reporting to the FDA under state law tort principles.