§Why CasetextPricing

Minute Order

undefined

29 Cited authorities

  1. Lee v. Hanley

    61 Cal.4th 1225 (Cal. 2015)   Cited 335 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that § 340.6 did not bar plaintiff's fee dispute claim that attorney refused to return unearned attorney's fees, because the claim could also be construed as conversion

  2. Fremont Indemnity Co. v. Fremont General Corp.

    148 Cal.App.4th 97 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 365 times
    Holding a net operating loss as intangible property

  3. Syed v. M-I, LLC

    846 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2017)   Cited 206 times   33 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a plaintiff had standing under the Fair Credit Reporting Act when the court could "fairly infer" that his alleged confusion caused him to sign a liability waiver he otherwise would not have

  4. C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School District

    53 Cal.4th 861 (Cal. 2012)   Cited 227 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Finding that supervisory personnel could be vicariously liable and noting that "public school personnel may be individually liable for their negligent failure to protect students from harm at others' hands"

  5. Khoury v. Maly's of California, Inc.

    14 Cal.App.4th 612 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 386 times
    Holding that " demurrer for uncertainty is strictly construed, even where a complaint is in some respects uncertain, because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures."

  6. Norman-Bloodsaw v. Lawrence Berkeley Lab

    135 F.3d 1260 (9th Cir. 1998)   Cited 264 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that unauthorized employer testing for sensitive medical information violates employees' right to informational privacy

  7. Drew v. Equifax Information Services, LLC

    690 F.3d 1100 (9th Cir. 2012)   Cited 115 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiff "alleged sufficient cognizable damages to survive summary judgment [as to his FCRA claims]"

  8. Sosinsky v. Grant

    6 Cal.App.4th 1548 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 195 times
    Holding it improper to take judicial notice of the truth of a court's factual findings where principles of res judicata or collateral estoppel do not apply

  9. Tellez v. Rich Voss Trucking, Inc.

    240 Cal.App.4th 1052 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 99 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

  10. 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.

  11. Section 1681b - Permissible purposes of consumer reports

    15 U.S.C. § 1681b   Cited 1,818 times   105 Legal Analyses
    Granting permission to obtain credit report where person "intends to use the information, as a potential investor or servicer, or current insurer, in connection with a valuation of, or an assessment of the credit or prepayment risks associated with, an existing credit obligation"

  12. Section 1681p - Jurisdiction of courts; limitation of actions

    15 U.S.C. § 1681p   Cited 683 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Granting to district courts original jurisdiction over claims brought under the FCRA