9 Cited authorities

Evans v. City of Berkeley
38 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 2006) Cited 552 times
Rejecting allegation contradicted by judicially noticed facts
Taylor v. Principal Financial Group, Inc.
93 F.3d 155 (5th Cir. 1996) Cited 550 times
Holding that "the employee's initial request for an accommodation . . . triggers the employer's obligation to participate in the interactive process of determining one"
Nadaf-Rahrov v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc.
166 Cal.App.4th 952 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) Cited 308 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that "an employer's failure to engage in the interactive process is an unlawful employment practice . . . only if a reasonable accommodation existed."
Prilliman v. United Air Lines, Inc.
53 Cal.App.4th 935 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) Cited 260 times
Concluding that the plaintiff presented triable issues of fact with respect to his negligence cause of action based on United Air Lines's failure to supervise employees and train employees about the plaintiff's rights under the FEHA
Kurinij v. Hanna Morton
55 Cal.App.4th 853 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) Cited 225 times
Rejecting argument that nominal damages award could not sustain jury verdict because "without actual damages, there is no fraud," where the nominal award represented jury's determination of fact of actual damage
Hoffman v. Smithwoods RV Park, LLC
179 Cal.App.4th 390 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) Cited 142 times
No. H033464. October 23, 2009. Appeal from the Superior Court of Santa Cruz County, No. CV159578, Robert B. Atack, Judge. Greene, Chauvel, Descalso, Minoletti, Paul G. Minoletti and Susan J. Bayerd for Plaintiff and Appellant. Law Office of Anthony C. Rodriguez and Anthony C. Rodriguez for Defendant and Respondent. [CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION ] Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.1105, it is ordered that this opinion is certified for publication, with the exception of part II.B.
Castillo v. Barrera
146 Cal.App.4th 1317 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) Cited 70 times
In Castillo, the plaintiff alleged he was the defendant's former boxing manager and sued his former client for breach of contract, fraud, and quantum meruit after he did not get his management percentage.
Uhrich v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.
109 Cal.App.4th 598 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) Cited 78 times 6 Legal Analyses
Rejecting the argument that the Insured was covered because he may have been found merely negligent insofar as “[s]uch arguments misconstrue the ‘accident’ requirement in standard general liability policies”
Shirvanyan v. L.A. Cmty. Coll. Dist.
59 Cal.App.5th 82 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) Cited 24 times
B296593, B297419 11-30-2020 Anahit SHIRVANYAN, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, Defendant and Appellant. Carlson & Messer, Charles R. Messer, Los Angeles; Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland and Robert A. Olson, Los Angeles, for Defendant and Appellant. Shegerian & Associates, Carney R. Shegerian, Santa Monica, and Jill McDonell for Plaintiff and Respondent. ROTHSCHILD, P. J. Carlson & Messer, Charles R. Messer, Los Angeles; Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland and

Memorandum Points and Authorities

9 Cited authorities

Rejecting allegation contradicted by judicially noticed facts

Holding that "the employee's initial request for an accommodation . . . triggers the employer's obligation to participate in the interactive process of determining one"

Holding that "an employer's failure to engage in the interactive process is an unlawful employment practice . . . only if a reasonable accommodation existed."

Concluding that the plaintiff presented triable issues of fact with respect to his negligence cause of action based on United Air Lines's failure to supervise employees and train employees about the plaintiff's rights under the FEHA

Rejecting argument that nominal damages award could not sustain jury verdict because "without actual damages, there is no fraud," where the nominal award represented jury's determination of fact of actual damage

In Castillo, the plaintiff alleged he was the defendant's former boxing manager and sued his former client for breach of contract, fraud, and quantum meruit after he did not get his management percentage.

Rejecting the argument that the Insured was covered because he may have been found merely negligent insofar as “[s]uch arguments misconstrue the ‘accident’ requirement in standard general liability policies”