Holding that title insurer owed no duty of ordinary care to non-clients, commenting that "[i]n the business arena it would be unprecedented to impose a duty on one actor to operate its business in a manner that would ensure the financial success of transactions between third parties"
Holding that "an employer's failure to engage in the interactive process is an unlawful employment practice . . . only if a reasonable accommodation existed."
Finding fact issue on plaintiff's FEHA disability discrimination claim with respect to employer's knowledge where a physician's work status report advised employer that plaintiff was "unable to perform regular job duties..."
Holding that the California Unfair Business Competition Law allowed plaintiff to sue to enjoin the insurer's activity to benefit others even though plaintiff had never been personally injured by it
Holding that nonresident property owners had standing to challenge a conditional-use permit issued by a neighboring city because the property owners' land was adjacent to the lot subject to the conditional-use permit