§Why CasetextPricing

Defendant Lorenzettis Reply Iso Motion For Judgment On The Pleadings

Reply

16 Cited authorities

  1. Blank v. Kirwan

    39 Cal.3d 311 (Cal. 1985)   Cited 3,047 times
    Holding that the standard for a failure to state a claim is whether "the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action"

  2. Pacific Gas Electric Co. v. Bear Stearns Co.

    50 Cal.3d 1118 (Cal. 1990)   Cited 671 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that interference with plaintiff's performance may give rise to a claim for interference with contractual relations if plaintiff's performance is made more costly or more burdensome

  3. Della Penna v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.

    11 Cal.4th 376 (Cal. 1995)   Cited 523 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the tort of intentional or negligence interference with prospective economic advantage requires that a defendant's interference be wrongful "by some measure beyond the fact of the interference itself

  4. Melchior v. New Line Productions, Inc.

    106 Cal.App.4th 779 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 316 times
    Holding that there is no cause of action in California for unjust enrichment

  5. Kransco v. American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co.

    23 Cal.4th 390 (Cal. 2000)   Cited 261 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding "contractual breaches are generally excluded from comparative fault allocations; favorably citing comment in treatise that "comparative fault [is] inapplicable to actions that are fully contractual in their gravamen"

  6. 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.

  7. Mintz v. Blue Cross of California

    172 Cal.App.4th 1594 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 129 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "corporate agents and employees acting for and on behalf of a corporation cannot be held liable for inducing a breach of the corporation's contract"

  8. Foxborough v. Van Atta

    26 Cal.App.4th 217 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 152 times
    Affirming denial of leave to amend in circumstances in which "proposed amendment would have been futile because it was barred by the statute of limitations"

  9. Maglica v. Maglica

    66 Cal.App.4th 442 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 117 times
    Describing quantum meruit as recovery of "the reasonable value of the services rendered provided they were of direct benefit to the defendant."

  10. Tucker v. Pacific Bell Mobile Services

    208 Cal.App.4th 201 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 69 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding the underlying facts in the complaint "indistinguishable" from those in which the "alleged misrepresentations were not uniformly made to proposed class members"

  11. Section 472 - Time for amending pleading by party of course

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 472   Cited 271 times
    Providing that " party may amend its pleading once without leave of the court at any time before the answer, demurrer, or motion to strike is filed, or after a demurrer or motion to strike is filed but before the demurrer or motion to strike is heard if the amended pleading is filed and served no later than the date for filing an opposition to the demurrer or motion to strike"

  12. 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