§Why CasetextPricing

Barang Seng vs. Brian D. Mckay

Demurrer to Amended Complaint

12 Cited authorities

  1. Lazar v. Superior Court

    12 Cal.4th 631 (Cal. 1996)   Cited 1,698 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that justifiable reliance is a required element of a fraud claim

  2. Tarmann v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

    2 Cal.App.4th 153 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 499 times
    Holding that, when suing a corporate defendant for fraud, a plaintiff must include “the names of the persons who made the allegedly fraudulent representations, their authority to speak, to whom they spoke, what they said or wrote, and when it was said or written”

  3. Hendy v. Losse

    54 Cal.3d 723 (Cal. 1991)   Cited 332 times
    Affirming an order sustaining defendants' demurrer without leave to amend when the plaintiff filed an amended complaint omitting harmful allegations from the original unverified complaint

  4. PCO Inc. v. Christensen, Miller, Fink, Jacobs, Glaser, Weil & Shapiro, LLP

    150 Cal.App.4th 384 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 202 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[m]oney cannot be the subject of a cause of action for conversion unless there is a specific, identifiable sum involved."

  5. Holland v. Morse Diesel International Inc.

    86 Cal.App.4th 1443 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 112 times
    In Holland, the court made the following statement: "If the second amended complaint contradicts or omits facts pleaded in [the plaintiff]'s first two complaints, we will take judicial notice of the earlier complaints and disregard inconsistent allegations, absent an explanation for the inconsistency.

  6. Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn.

    19 Cal.App.4th 761 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 121 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding "fees are not authorized for exhibits not used at trial" under section 1033.5, subdivision

  7. Jamgotchian v. Slender

    170 Cal.App.4th 1384 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 37 times
    Holding implicitly that steward of a horse, by preventing the owner from retrieving his horse from the grounds of a race track and requiring that the horse be raced against the owner's wishes, did not commit a conversion

  8. Weitzenkorn v. Lesser

    40 Cal.2d 778 (Cal. 1953)   Cited 145 times
    Holding that determination of novelty is a question of law

  9. Waffer Internat. Corp. v. Khorsandi

    69 Cal.App.4th 1261 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 28 times
    Determining that the doctrine did not apply even where a writ of attachment was obtained because it involved a different party and a different claim

  10. Cooper v. Equity Gen. Insurance

    219 Cal.App.3d 1252 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990)   Cited 39 times
    Holding that an attorney working on a contingency basis did not have an independent financial stake because plaintiff did not allege that the attorney "stood to gain anything more than a fee for his work as an attorney."

  11. 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