§Why CasetextPricing

Ex Parte Application Notice Required

undefined

13 Cited authorities

  1. Gillespie v. Civiletti

    629 F.2d 637 (9th Cir. 1980)   Cited 2,900 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that where a plaintiff is unaware of the identity of alleged defendants, "plaintiff should be given an opportunity through discovery to identify the unknown defendants, unless it is clear that discovery would not uncover the identities or that the complaint would be dismissed on other grounds"

  2. Bernson v. Browning-Ferris Industries

    7 Cal.4th 926 (Cal. 1994)   Cited 248 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that fraudulent concealment “tolls the applicable statute of limitations, but only for that period during which the claim is undiscovered by plaintiff or until such time as plaintiff, by the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have discovered it”

  3. Khawar v. Globe Internat., Inc.

    19 Cal.4th 254 (Cal. 1998)   Cited 106 times
    Holding that the characterization of involuntary public figure must be reserved for those individuals who satisfy both of Gertz's supporting grounds

  4. Krinsky v. Doe 6

    159 Cal.App.4th 1154 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 78 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Finding that in the context of an online message board containing "vulgar and insulting" language, a statement that the plaintiff had a "fake medical degree" was obviously intended as ridicule rather than a statement of fact

  5. Doe v. Superior Court of L.A. Cnty.

    1 Cal.App.5th 1300 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 51 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding statement " ‘If Vitality misinformed you or Sony as to its ownership or profit participants in any way, please take my email into consideration’ ... communicates no false or defamatory facts ‘of and concerning’ Hydraulx," despite allegation that the two companies share owners, offices, and infrastructure

  6. Regalia v. the Nethercutt Collection

    172 Cal.App.4th 361 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 53 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Noting that " slander that falls within the first four subdivisions of Civil Code section 46 is slander per se"

  7. ZL Techs., Inc. v. Doe

    13 Cal.App.5th 603 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 37 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Identifying features of opinions

  8. Dryden v. Tri-Valley Growers

    65 Cal.App.3d 990 (Cal. Ct. App. 1977)   Cited 93 times
    Noting that it is well-established "that one who, without a privilege to do so, induces a third person not to perform a contract with another is liable to the other for the harm caused thereby."

  9. Glassdoor, Inc. v. Superior Court of Santa Clara Cnty.

    9 Cal.App.5th 623 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 9 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Applying a "tripartite standard of review"

  10. California Shellfish, Inc. v. United Shellfish Co.

    56 Cal.App.4th 16 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 16 times
    Holding that the losing party has the burden to show "substantial justification" under a discovery sanction statute, which uses the same language as section 405.38

  11. Section 48 - Malice not inferred from communication

    Cal. Civ. Code § 48   Cited 97 times

    In the case provided for in subdivision (c) of Section 47, malice is not inferred from the communication. Ca. Civ. Code § 48 Amended by Stats 2003 ch 62 (SB 600),s 11, eff. 1/1/2004.

  12. Rule 3.1204 - Contents of notice and declaration regarding notice

    Cal. R. 3.1204   Cited 24 times

    (a) Contents of notice When notice of an ex parte application is given, the person giving notice must: (1) State with specificity the nature of the relief to be requested and the date, time, and place for the presentation of the application; and (2) Attempt to determine whether the opposing party will appear to oppose the application. (b) Declaration regarding notice An ex parte application must be accompanied by a declaration regarding notice stating: (1) The notice given, including the date, time