§Why CasetextPricing

Jeffrey Cristobal vs. Applied Medical Resources Corporation

Motion for Leave to Amend

12 Cited authorities

  1. Iskanian v. CSL Transportation Los Angeles, LLC

    59 Cal.4th 348 (Cal. 2014)   Cited 710 times   145 Legal Analyses
    Holding that arbitration provisions banning class-action litigation or collective arbitration of employment-related claims are enforceable under the NLRA and the FAA's saving clause, but also holding that arbitration provisions banning representative claims under California's Private Attorneys General Act violates that Act

  2. Nestle v. City of Santa Monica

    6 Cal.3d 920 (Cal. 1972)   Cited 467 times
    In Nestle we held, inter alia, that a nuisance action based on airport noise was improperly dismissed on the basis of government immunity, and suggested that the plaintiffs on remand might be able to demonstrate a continuing nuisance.

  3. Esparza v. KS Indus., L.P.

    13 Cal.App.5th 1228 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 63 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding "[t]he Iskanian rule does not exempt . . . from arbitration" "[c]laims for unpaid wages based on . . . section 558"

  4. Board of Trustees v. Superior Court

    149 Cal.App.4th 1154 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 51 times
    Following United Farm Workers

  5. A.N. v. County of Los Angeles

    171 Cal.App.4th 1058 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 33 times
    Applying abuse of discretion standard of review to challenge to plaintiff's substitution of Doe defendants

  6. Petersen v. Bank of America Corp.

    232 Cal.App.4th 238 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 10 times

    G048387 12-11-2014 Christina I. PETERSEN et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. BANK OF AMERICA et al., Defendants and Respondents. Brookstone Law, Vito Torchia, Jr., Sasan Behnood, Newport Beach, Carlos E. MacManus, Sherman Oaks, and Deron Colby, Newport Beach, for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Bryan Cave, Stuart W. Price, Trevor Allen, Irvine, and Douglas E. Winter, Washington, for Defendants and Respondents. BEDSWORTH, ACTING P.J. Brookstone Law, Vito Torchia, Jr., Sasan Behnood, Newport Beach, Carlos

  7. Douglas v. Superior Court

    215 Cal.App.3d 155 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989)   Cited 31 times

    Docket No. G008438. October 31, 1989. Page 156 COUNSEL Saltarelli Steponovich, Michael J. Steponovich, Jr., and Stephen A. Steponovich for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Rourke Woodruff, Daniel K. Spradlin and Craig G. Farrington for Real Parties in Interest. OPINION SCOVILLE, P.J. Petitioner Peter J. Douglas filed suit against his former employer and others (real parties Jeffrey Charles Weiner et al., hereinafter Weiner) to recover commissions he alleges he earned by selling Weiner's

  8. Hirsa v. Superior Court

    118 Cal.App.3d 486 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981)   Cited 25 times
    In Hirsa the reviewing court issued a writ of mandate directing the superior court to permit plaintiff to amend his complaint to include an additional cause of action against a previously named defendant, based on the same general set of facts.

  9. Rule 5 - Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 5   Cited 22,480 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Allowing service by filing papers with the court's electronic-filing system

  10. Section 473 - Mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 473   Cited 5,921 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Allowing up to six months to challenge a judgment entered through the moving party's mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect

  11. Section 1013 - Requirements for service by mail

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1013   Cited 74 times

    (a) In case of service by mail, the notice or other paper shall be deposited in a post office, mailbox, subpost office, substation, or mail chute, or other like facility regularly maintained by the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope, with postage paid, addressed to the person on whom it is to be served, at the office address as last given by that person on any document filed in the cause and served on the party making service by mail; otherwise at that party's place of residence.

  12. Section 1010.6 - Electronic service of document

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1010.6   Cited 37 times

    (a) A document may be served electronically in an action filed with the court as provided in this section, in accordance with rules adopted pursuant to subdivision (h). (1) For purposes of this section: (A) "Electronic service" means service of a document, on a person, by either electronic transmission or electronic notification. Electronic service may be performed directly by a person, including a party, by a person's agent, including the person's attorney, or through an electronic filing service