§Why CasetextPricing

Laurence Harper vs. Raul Najera Lopez

Motion - Other

10 Cited authorities

  1. Chavez v. Netflix

    162 Cal.App.4th 43 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 87 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion to intervene without specifying reasons for such denial where "request to intervene was untimely"

  2. Stull v. Sparrow

    92 Cal.App.4th 860 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 87 times
    Discussing § 2033, subd. (o), which is the predecessor to section 2033.420

  3. American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees v. Metropolitan Water Dist.

    126 Cal.App.4th 247 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 60 times

    No. B166179 January 31, 2005 Appeal from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Nos. BS 076975 and BS 079457, John P. Shook, Judge. Rothner, Segall Greenstone, Anthony R. Segall and Bernhard Rohrbacher for Petitioner and Appellant. Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard Smith and Wesley G. Beverlin for Defendant and Respondent. OPINION ALDRICH, J. INTRODUCTION This appeal involves the grievance procedure under a memorandum of understanding (the MOU) between the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California

  4. Brooks v. American Broadcasting Co.

    179 Cal.App.3d 500 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 106 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Denying party must have "a reasonably entertained good faith belief that the party would prevail on the issue at trial"

  5. Gonzales v. Personal Storage, Inc.

    56 Cal.App.4th 464 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 65 times
    Offering as an example, "a warehouseman's negligence in causing a fire which destroyed the plaintiffs' goods will not support a conversion claim"

  6. Grace v. Mansourian

    240 Cal.App.4th 523 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 30 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Grace, the Court of Appeal reversed an order denying costs of proof to a plaintiff who sought admissions that the defendant failed to stop at a red light and was negligent.

  7. Miller v. American Greetings Corp.

    161 Cal.App.4th 1055 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 40 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Miller v. American Greetings Corp., supra, 161 Cal.App.4th at page 1066, quoted by the trial court in its ruling, the court used could and would interchangeably, citing the requirement that the party who denied the request for admission hold good faith belief it "would prevail" on the issue at trial and applying that requirement to the facts to conclude, as quoted above, that appellants entertained a good faith belief that they "could prevail" at trial.

  8. City of Glendale v. Marcus Cable Associates, LLC

    235 Cal.App.4th 344 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 26 times

    B249094 03-18-2015 CITY OF GLENDALE, Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and Appellant, v. MARCUS CABLE ASSOCIATES, LLC, Defendant, Cross-complainant and Appellant. Rutan & Tucker, William M. Marticorena, Jeffrey T. Melching, Michelle D. Molko, Costa Mesa, for Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and Appellant. Coblentz Patch Duffy & Bass, Richard R. Patch, Ann E. Johnston, San Francisco, Frederick C. Crombie for Defendant, Cross-complainant and Appellant. MOSK, Acting P.J. Rutan & Tucker, William M. Marticorena, Jeffrey

  9. Garcia v. Hyster Co.

    28 Cal.App.4th 724 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 56 times
    Holding that where detailed statutes did not expressly provide "for the award of costs in favor of a prevailing defendant against a plaintiff in intervention for any period preceding the filing of the complaint in intervention," such costs would not be allowed

  10. Billings v. Edwards

    120 Cal.App.3d 238 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981)   Cited 17 times
    In Billings v. Edwards (1981) 120 Cal.App.3d 238, 246 [ 174 Cal.Rptr. 722], the court held that the required statement at the end of the request portion of the document, appearing immediately before the numbered requests, is sufficient, and the warning need not appear at the end of the list of enumerated responses.