§Why CasetextPricing

Plaintiffs Opposition To Defendant Mirali Malakoutians Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss Plaintiffs Amended Complaint

Opposition

19 Cited authorities

  1. Romano v. Rockwell Internat., Inc.

    14 Cal.4th 479 (Cal. 1996)   Cited 581 times
    Holding that a FEHA action for discriminatory discharge does not commence until the actual discharge

  2. Consolidated World Investments, Inc. v. Lido Preferred Ltd.

    9 Cal.App.4th 373 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 111 times
    In Consolidated, the plaintiff failed to open an escrow account which was the condition precedent to the defendant's performance.

  3. Joslin v. H.A.S. Ins. Brokerage

    184 Cal.App.3d 369 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 112 times
    In Joslin v. H.A.S. Ins. Brokerage (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 369, the plaintiffs brought an action against an automobile service company for failure to pay for defects in an automobile.

  4. Linden Partners v. Wilshire Linden Associates

    62 Cal.App.4th 508 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 52 times
    Finding "if, under the facts and circumstances of a given case, a court finds it appropriate to determine the existence or non-existence of a duty in the nature of a contractual obligation, it may properly do so by a ruling on that issue presented by a motion for summary adjudication"

  5. General Motors Corp. v. Superior Court

    48 Cal.App.4th 580 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 52 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In General Motors Corp. v. Superior Court (Jeffrey), 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 871 (1996), decided some eight months after the district court's order granting Saratoga's motion for summary judgment was entered, the court focused only on the defendant's attempt to show that plaintiff had actual knowledge of her cause of action against the defendant prior to filing the complaint.

  6. Fogel v. Farmers Group, Inc.

    160 Cal.App.4th 1403 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 28 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting incorporation partly because the reference "did not identify the subscription agreement by its title"

  7. Dieckmann v. Superior Court

    175 Cal.App.3d 345 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985)   Cited 52 times
    Noting "there was no evidence on the record before [the trial court] proving or indicating that plaintiff knew facts giving rise to a products liability action against" the defendant

  8. Balon v. Drost

    20 Cal.App.4th 483 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 35 times
    Finding that where defendant gave plaintiff a note with defendant's name at the scene of the accident, and plaintiff subsequently forgot defendant's name when filing his complaint, the subsequent amended complaint naming defendant related back to satisfy the statute of limitations

  9. Henry v. Sharma

    154 Cal.App.3d 665 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984)   Cited 47 times
    Affirming order of specific performance despite needing to allow purchasers a reasonable time to obtain financing

  10. Marasco v. Wadsworth

    21 Cal.3d 82 (Cal. 1978)   Cited 36 times
    Explaining that plaintiff's ignorance of his cause of action against a doe defendant is not an excuse for failing to pursue a claim unless the law has actually changed, giving rise to a theory of liability not previously recognized

  11. Section 436 - Authority of court upon motion

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 436   Cited 310 times
    Authorizing the court to strike irrelevant, false, or improper matter from a pleading

  12. Section 1657 - No time specified for performance

    Cal. Civ. Code § 1657   Cited 218 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Explaining that "[i]f no time is specified for the performance of an act required to be performed, a reasonable time is allowed"