§Why CasetextPricing

Notice Entry of Order

undefined

14 Cited authorities

  1. De Villers v. County of San Diego

    156 Cal.App.4th 238 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 117 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding "no relevant case law approving a claim for direct liability based on a public entity's allegedly negligent hiring and supervision practices"

  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. 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

  4. 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"

  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. 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

  7. Koussaya v. City of Stockton

    54 Cal.App.5th 909 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 16 times

    C089159 09-21-2020 Stephanie KOUSSAYA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF STOCKTON et al., Defendants and Respondents. Piering Law Firm, Robert A. Piering, John D. Beals ; and Leslie M. Mitchell, Sacramento, for Plaintiff and Appellant. Angelo, Kilday & Kilduff and John A. Whitesides, Sacramento, for Defendants and Respondents. HOCH, J. Piering Law Firm, Robert A. Piering, John D. Beals ; and Leslie M. Mitchell, Sacramento, for Plaintiff and Appellant. Angelo, Kilday & Kilduff and John A. Whitesides

  8. Riley v. Alameda Cnty. Sheriff's Office

    43 Cal.App.5th 492 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019)   Cited 4 times

    A156407 12-17-2019 William RILEY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, Defendant and Respondent. Timothy P. Rumberger, Berkeley, and Law Offices of Timothy P. Rumberger, for Plaintiff and Appellant. Haapala, Thompson & Abern, Rebecca S. Widen, Jody Struck, Oakland, and Christopher M. Wolcott, for Defendant and Respondent. SIMONS, J. Timothy P. Rumberger, Berkeley, and Law Offices of Timothy P. Rumberger, for Plaintiff and Appellant. Haapala, Thompson & Abern, Rebecca S. Widen

  9. 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

  10. 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.

  11. 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