§Why CasetextPricing

Christopher Trimble vs. Fullerton Joint Union High School District

Reply to Opposition

6 Cited authorities

  1. Morgan v. Regents of University of California

    88 Cal.App.4th 52 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 649 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"

  2. King v. United Parcel Services, Inc.

    152 Cal.App.4th 426 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 381 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"

  3. Nosal-Tabor v. Sharp Chula Vista Medical Center

    239 Cal.App.4th 1224 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 22 times   2 Legal Analyses

    D065843 08-03-2015 Karen D. NOSAL–TABOR, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SHARP CHULA VISTA MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant and Respondent. David A. Miller for Plaintiff and Appellant. Andrews Lagasse Branch & Bell, Margaret Chandler Bell and Shauna L. Sinnott, San Diego, for Defendant and Respondent. AARON, J. David A. Miller for Plaintiff and Appellant. Andrews Lagasse Branch & Bell, Margaret Chandler Bell and Shauna L. Sinnott, San Diego, for Defendant and Respondent. AARON, J.I. INTRODUCTION The Nursing

  4. Morelewicz v. Government Employees Ins. Co.

    207 F. App'x 823 (9th Cir. 2006)

    Submitted: November 15, 2006 . This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3) Craig A. Miller, Levine, Steinberg & Miller, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant. Charles A. Bird, Esq., Kathryn A. Bernert, Esq., Luce Forward Hamilton & Scripps, LLP, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of

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

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 5   Cited 22,753 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Allowing service by filing papers with the court's electronic-filing system

  6. Rule 2.251 - Electronic service

    Cal. R. 2.251   Cited 15 times

    (a)Authorization for electronic service When a document may be served by mail, express mail, overnight delivery, or fax transmission, the document may be served electronically under Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6, Penal Code section 690.5, and the rules in this chapter. For purposes of electronic service made pursuant to Penal Code section 690.5, express consent to electronic service is required.[]= (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2022; previously amended effective January 1, 2007