13 Cited authorities

  1. Gaines v. Fidelity National Title Ins. Co.

    62 Cal.4th 1081 (Cal. 2016)   Cited 70 times
    Approving but distinguishing Brock
  2. Redfearn v. Trader Joe's Co.

    20 Cal.App.5th 989 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018)   Cited 48 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Expressing the same view
  3. Woods v. Fox Broadcasting Sub., Inc.

    129 Cal.App.4th 344 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 66 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a party to the plaintiff's contract cannot be liable" for various business torts, including interference with prospective economic advantage
  4. Popescu v. Apple Inc.

    1 Cal.App.5th 39 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 43 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Popescu v. Apple Inc., 1 Cal. App. 5th 39, 62 (Ct. App. 2016), the court declined to extend Reeves to the facts of that case, but did not hold more generally that Reeves could never apply outside the employment context.
  5. PM Group, Inc. v. Stewart

    154 Cal.App.4th 55 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 50 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that because the subcontracts at issue required the performance by the singer Rod Stewart, who was not a party to the contract sued upon, neither Stewart nor his agents could be found liable for the tort of interference with contract
  6. Asahi Kasei Pharma Corp. v. Actelion Ltd.

    222 Cal.App.4th 945 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 34 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding substantial evidence supporting a lost profits calculation where the business "does not fit neatly into the established business versus new business paradigm"
  7. Warren v. Schecter

    57 Cal.App.4th 1189 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 36 times
    Noting that the one-year period cannot be tolled by fraud, concealment, or the presence of a foreign body
  8. Ocean Services Corp. v. Ventura Port Dist.

    15 Cal.App.4th 1762 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 41 times
    In Ocean Services Corp. v. Ventura Port Dist. (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 1762, the defendant moved to dismiss for failure to bring the case to trial within five years.
  9. Citizens Utilities Co. v. Superior Court

    59 Cal.2d 805 (Cal. 1963)   Cited 65 times
    Operating public utility taken
  10. Holland v. Dave Altman's R. v. Center

    222 Cal.App.3d 477 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990)   Cited 15 times
    In Holland v. Dave Altman's R.V. Center (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 477, 271 Cal.Rptr. 706, the Court of Appeal addressed the meaning of the term “stay” in section 583.340(b).
  11. Rule 3.1332 - Motion or application for continuance of trial

    Cal. R. 3.1332   Cited 248 times

    (a) Trial dates are firm To ensure the prompt disposition of civil cases, the dates assigned for a trial are firm. All parties and their counsel must regard the date set for trial as certain. (b)Motion or application A party seeking a continuance of the date set for trial, whether contested or uncontested or stipulated to by the parties, must make the request for a continuance by a noticed motion or an ex parte application under the rules in chapter 4 of this division, with supporting declarations

  12. Rule 2.251 - Electronic service

    Cal. R. 2.251   Cited 14 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