§Why CasetextPricing

Connie Parker vs. Nili N. Alai

Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication

35 Cited authorities

  1. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green

    411 U.S. 792 (1973)   Cited 53,093 times   96 Legal Analyses
    Holding in employment discrimination case that statistical evidence of employer's general policy and practice may be relevant circumstantial evidence of discriminatory intent behind individual employment decision

  2. Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc.

    24 Cal.4th 317 (Cal. 2000)   Cited 3,301 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an implied covenant "cannot be endowed with an existence independent of its contractual underpinnings. It cannot impose substantive duties or limits on the contracting parties beyond those incorporated in the specific terms of their agreement."

  3. Yanowitz v. L'Oreal USA Inc.

    36 Cal.4th 1028 (Cal. 2005)   Cited 1,570 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that to establish a "protected activity," an "employee's communications to the employer [must] sufficiently convey the employee's reasonable concerns that the employer has acted or is acting in an unlawful discriminatory manner."

  4. Lazar v. Superior Court

    12 Cal.4th 631 (Cal. 1996)   Cited 1,686 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that justifiable reliance is a required element of a fraud claim

  5. Small v. Fritz Cos., Inc.

    30 Cal.4th 167 (Cal. 2003)   Cited 636 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that complaint for negligent misrepresentation in a holder action must be "pled with the same specificity required in a holder's action for fraud."

  6. Morgan v. Regents of University of California

    88 Cal.App.4th 52 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 652 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding plaintiff "must obtain from the [DFEH] a notice of right to sue in order to be entitled to file a civil action in court based on violations of FEHA"

  7. Laabs v. City of Victorville

    163 Cal.App.4th 1242 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 377 times
    Finding no abuse of discretion where the trial court "could have easily concluded that at the time plaintiff refused to admit such matters she reasonably held a good faith belief that she would prevail at trial on these issues"

  8. King v. United Parcel Services, Inc.

    152 Cal.App.4th 426 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 383 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding employer had no duty to accommodate employee who returned to work with a doctor's note releasing him back to "regular duties and hours" and who admitted he was able to "get the job done"

  9. Green v. Ralee Engineering Co

    19 Cal.4th 66 (Cal. 1998)   Cited 484 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an employee who reported the sale of defective aircraft parts did state a claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy because his action was directly connected to federal regulation of air safety

  10. Morgan v. AT&T Wireless Services Inc.

    177 Cal.App.4th 1235 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 255 times
    Holding "a fraudulent business practice is one that is likely to deceive members of the public"

  11. Section 437c - [Effective Until 1/1/2025] Motion for summary judgment

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 437c   Cited 8,377 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Ruling on summary judgment motion must be based on "papers submitted" with the motion

  12. Rule 3.1350 - Motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication

    Cal. R. 3.1350   Cited 233 times

    (a) Definitions As used in this rule, (1) "Motion" refers to either a motion for summary judgment or a motion for summary adjudication. (2) "Material facts" are facts that relate to the cause of action, claim for damages, issue of duty, or affirmative defense that is the subject of the motion and that could make a difference in the disposition of the motion. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2016.) (b) Motion for summary adjudication If made in the alternative, a motion for summary adjudication