§Why CasetextPricing

Notice of Motion For Summary Adjudication, Points And Authorities

Motion

17 Cited authorities

  1. Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.

    25 Cal.4th 826 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 4,948 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that the gathering and dissemination of pricing information by the petroleum companies through an independent industry service did not imply collusive action where there was no evidence the information was misused as a basis for an unlawful conspiracy; rather, evidence suggested that individual companies used all available resources “to determine capacity, supply, and pricing decisions which would maximize their own individual profits”

  2. Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc.

    24 Cal.4th 317 (Cal. 2000)   Cited 3,301 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an implied covenant "cannot be endowed with an existence independent of its contractual underpinnings. It cannot impose substantive duties or limits on the contracting parties beyond those incorporated in the specific terms of their agreement."

  3. Allen v. City of Sacramento

    234 Cal.App.4th 41 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 408 times
    Holding allegation of "a wrongful arrest or detention, without more, does not" state a claim for violation of the Bane Act

  4. Roberts v. Los Angeles County Bar Assn.

    105 Cal.App.4th 604 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 161 times
    Deciding prong-two issue despite trial court's failure to reach it

  5. Zavala v. Arce

    58 Cal.App.4th 915 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 146 times

    Docket No. D023269. October 27, 1997. Appeal from Superior Court of San Diego County, No. SB2433, Thomas Oliver LaVoy, Judge. COUNSEL Suppa, Highnote Lee and Teresa Trucchi for Plaintiff and Appellant. Lewis, D'Amato, Brisbois Bisgaard, Marilyn R. Moriarty, James E. Friedhofer and Thomas M. Diachenko for Defendant and Respondent. OPINION NARES, J. Plaintiff Diana Zavala appeals from a summary judgment in favor of defendant Jorge Arce, M.D. (Dr. Arce), her former obstetrician, on her first amended

  6. Villa v. McFerren

    35 Cal.App.4th 733 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 141 times
    Interpreting the allocation of the burden of proof under the 1992 amendments to the summary judgment statute as a question of law

  7. Ludgate Insurance Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp.

    82 Cal.App.4th 592 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 112 times
    Finding that where “the bond requirement of section 1616 does not...apply, section 1620, subdivision (b), nonetheless gives the trial court discretion to require the nonadmitted alien insurer to put up such a bond”

  8. McDowell v. Watson

    59 Cal.App.4th 1155 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 115 times
    Stating that “injunctive relief is a remedy and not, in itself a cause of action”

  9. Wellenkamp v. Bank of America

    21 Cal.3d 943 (Cal. 1978)   Cited 167 times
    Concluding that a complaint for declaratory relief must show "the existence of an actual controversy relating to the legal rights and duties of the parties under written instrument or with respect to property and requests that the rights and duties of the parties be adjudged by the court."

  10. Paul v. Milk Depots, Inc.

    62 Cal.2d 129 (Cal. 1964)   Cited 218 times
    Describing limited reversal procedure

  11. Section 437 - Grounds for motion to appear on face of challenged pleading; motion based on matter subject to judicial notice

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 437   Cited 290 times   3 Legal Analyses

    (a) The grounds for a motion to strike shall appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice. (b) Where the motion to strike is based on matter of which the court may take judicial notice pursuant to Section 452 or 453 of the Evidence Code, such matter shall be specified in the notice of motion, or in the supporting points and authorities, except as the court may otherwise permit. Ca. Civ. Proc. Code § 437 Added by Stats. 1982

  12. Section 805 - Servitude not held by owner of servient tenement

    Cal. Civ. Code § 805   Cited 31 times

    A servitude thereon cannot be held by the owner of the servient tenement. Ca. Civ. Code § 805 Enacted 1872.

  13. Rule 3.1350 - Motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication

    Cal. R. 3.1350   Cited 233 times

    (a) Definitions As used in this rule, (1) "Motion" refers to either a motion for summary judgment or a motion for summary adjudication. (2) "Material facts" are facts that relate to the cause of action, claim for damages, issue of duty, or affirmative defense that is the subject of the motion and that could make a difference in the disposition of the motion. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2016.) (b) Motion for summary adjudication If made in the alternative, a motion for summary adjudication