§Why CasetextPricing

Uptown Newport Jamboree, LLC vs. Newport Fab, LLC

Reply to Motion

26 Cited authorities

  1. Evans v. City of Berkeley

    38 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 2006)   Cited 544 times
    Rejecting allegation contradicted by judicially noticed facts

  2. Fremont Indemnity Co. v. Fremont General Corp.

    148 Cal.App.4th 97 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 358 times
    Holding a net operating loss as intangible property

  3. Cantu v. Resolution Trust Corp.

    4 Cal.App.4th 857 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 510 times
    Holding that "intentional infliction of emotional distress is an injury to the person"

  4. Meyer v. Sprint Spectrum L.P.

    45 Cal.4th 634 (Cal. 2009)   Cited 258 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a demand letter under section 1782 can set forth "an individual or class grievance" with respect to alleged violations of section 1770

  5. Hoffman v. Smithwoods RV Park, LLC

    179 Cal.App.4th 390 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 142 times

    No. H033464. October 23, 2009. Appeal from the Superior Court of Santa Cruz County, No. CV159578, Robert B. Atack, Judge. Greene, Chauvel, Descalso, Minoletti, Paul G. Minoletti and Susan J. Bayerd for Plaintiff and Appellant. Law Office of Anthony C. Rodriguez and Anthony C. Rodriguez for Defendant and Respondent. [CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION ] Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.1105, it is ordered that this opinion is certified for publication, with the exception of part II.B.

  6. People v. Castillo

    49 Cal.4th 145 (Cal. 2010)   Cited 133 times
    Holding the Attorney General was judicially estopped from disavowing a stipulation calling for imposition of a two-year term of civil commitment of a sexually violent predator notwithstanding a change in intervening law (The Sexual Punishment and Control Act: Jessica's law, Proposition 83) that called for sexually violent predators to be committed indefinitely, even though "a stipulation similar to the one we consider in the present case now could not properly be negotiated, entered into, and enforced"

  7. Total Call Intl. v. Peerless Ins. Co.

    181 Cal.App.4th 161 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 90 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Noting that an exclusion "discloses no suggestion that it relates exclusively to [claims brought by consumers and not to claims brought by competitors]; its language is broad and unqualified"

  8. Stonehouse Homes LLC v. City of Sierra Madre

    167 Cal.App.4th 531 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 62 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding unripe developer's declaratory judgment action challenging city resolution that merely directed committee to prepare recommendations for future legislation to amend zoning ordinance

  9. Lee v. Silveira

    6 Cal.App.5th 527 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 41 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Reversing trial court's denial of special motion to strike plaintiffs' declaratory relief claim

  10. George v. Auto. Club of South. California

    201 Cal.App.4th 1112 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 47 times
    Applying rule, but finding no ambiguity