§Why CasetextPricing

Southern California Healthcare System, Inc. vs. Universal Care, Inc.

Demurrer to Amended Complaint

27 Cited authorities

  1. Blank v. Kirwan

    39 Cal.3d 311 (Cal. 1985)   Cited 3,089 times
    Holding that the standard for a failure to state a claim is whether "the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action"

  2. Waller v. Truck Ins. Exchange, Inc.

    11 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1995)   Cited 1,805 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, when extrinsic facts eliminate the potential for coverage, an insurer may decline to defend even if the complaint had suggested potential liability

  3. Love v. Fire Ins. Exchange

    221 Cal.App.3d 1136 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990)   Cited 569 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding bad faith occurs when the insurer withholds benefits unreasonably or without proper cause

  4. Pasadena Live, LLC v. City of Pasadena

    114 Cal.App.4th 1089 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 195 times
    Holding that defendant breached implied covenant by refusing to consider plaintiff's proposed productions when the contract "envisioned that [plaintiff would] at least have the opportunity to apply for approval of its productions in order to seek to recoup its investment"

  5. Puentes v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc.

    160 Cal.App.4th 638 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 154 times
    Defining "unfair," "unlawful" and "fraudulent" practices under California's UCL

  6. People v. McKale

    25 Cal.3d 626 (Cal. 1979)   Cited 251 times
    Holding a plaintiff must allege facts to demonstrate that the practice violates the underlying law

  7. Olsen v. Breeze, Inc.

    48 Cal.App.4th 608 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 133 times
    In Olsen v. Breeze, Inc., 48 Cal. App. 4th 608 (1996), the appellate court upheld the denial of a pro se plaintiff's request for attorneys' fees after his lawsuit led numerous ski shops to modify the liability language in their contracts in part because the action "did not vindicate 'an important right,' inasmuch as skiing is not a matter of public interest."

  8. Watson Laboratories, Inc. v. Rhone-Poulenc Rorer

    178 F. Supp. 2d 1099 (C.D. Cal. 2001)   Cited 101 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding Defendant's violation of Federal Drug Administration regulations is a viable claim under California Business and Professional Code § 17200. "The `unlawful' practices prohibited by section 17200 are any practices forbidden by law, be it civil or criminal, federal, state or municipal, statutory, regulatory, or court-made."

  9. People v. Toomey

    157 Cal.App.3d 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984)   Cited 156 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a showing of threatened future harm or continuing violation is required" before a court can impose an injunction under California's Business and Professions Code

  10. Samura v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc.

    17 Cal.App.4th 1284 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 101 times
    Holding that a private party lacks power to enforce the Knox-Keene Act because that power "has been entrusted exclusively to the Department of Corporations, preempting even the common law powers of the Attorney General"

  11. Section 430.10 - Grounds for objection by party against whom complaint or cross-complaint filed

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10   Cited 1,056 times
    Explaining "[t]he party against whom a complaint ... has been filed may object, by demurrer ..., to the pleading" on the basis that "[t]he pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action"

  12. Section 1371.37 - Engaging in unfair payment pattern prohibited

    Cal. Health & Saf. Code § 1371.37   Cited 9 times
    Specifying that the DMHC's imposition of sanctions for unfair payment patterns "shall not preclude, suspend, affect, or impact any other duty, right, responsibility, or obligation under a statute or under a contract between a health care service plan and a provider"