§Why CasetextPricing

Reply_iso_demurrer_and_motion_to_strike

Reply

9 Cited authorities

  1. Nedlloyd Lines B.V. v. Superior Court

    3 Cal.4th 459 (Cal. 1992)   Cited 580 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the phrase "governed by" in a choice of law clause compels the "logical conclusion" that the parties "intended that law to apply to all disputes arising out of the transaction or relationship"

  2. Frederick Road Limited Partnership v. Brown Sturm

    360 Md. 76 (Md. 2000)   Cited 285 times
    Holding that factual issues precluded deciding on summary judgment whether legal malpractice claims were untimely

  3. Ingersoll-Rand Financial Corp. v. Miller Mining Co.

    817 F.2d 1424 (9th Cir. 1987)   Cited 208 times
    Holding that while debtor's appeal was stayed, nondebtor guarantor's appeal was not

  4. Werbowsky v. Collomb

    362 Md. 581 (Md. 2001)   Cited 111 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the allegation that directors “are conflicted because of the fees they make as [company] directors, and their presumed desire to retain their directorships” does not show they were “conflicted or controlled ... to the point that a demand upon them would have been futile”

  5. CLD Construction, Inc. v. City of San Ramon

    120 Cal.App.4th 1141 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 88 times
    Remarking that representation by an attorney "is not an absolute prerequisite to the court's fundamental power to hear or determine a case ... it is more appropriate and just to treat a corporation's failure to be represented by an attorney as a defect that may be corrected ... in the sound discretion of the court"

  6. 1-800-Got Junk? LLC v. Superior Court

    189 Cal.App.4th 500 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 50 times
    Finding "designation of Washington law ... given that state's proximity to Got Junk's headquarters in Vancouver, Canada" reasonable

  7. Sanchez v. Sup. Ct. of St. of Ca. Co. of San Diego N

    CASE NO. 10-cv-0218 BEN (WVG) (S.D. Cal. May. 27, 2010)   Cited 2 times

    CASE NO. 10-cv-0218 BEN (WVG). May 27, 2010 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS [Docket Nos. 27, 31, 39] ROGER BENITEZ, District Judge Currently before this Court is Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a first amended complaint (Docket No. 39), Defendant Superior Court of the State of California County of San Diego North County Division's ("Superior Court's") motion to dismiss (Docket No. 31), and the remaining Defendants'

  8. Section 5-101 - Three-year limitation in general

    Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-101   Cited 770 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Imposing a three-year statute of limitations for civil actions “unless another provision of the Code provides a different period”

  9. Section 2-405.1 - Standard of care required of directors

    Md. Code, Corp. & Ass'ns § 2-405.1   Cited 66 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Stating that " director shall perform his duties as a director, including his duties as a member of a committee of the board on which he serves . . . In good faith; In a manner he reasonably believes to be in the best interests of the corporation; and With the care that an ordinarily prudent person in a like position would use under similar circumstances."