§Why CasetextPricing

Opposition To Motion For Protective Order

Opposition

9 Cited authorities

  1. Elliss v. Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc.

    218 Cal.App.4th 853 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 111 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting argument "that compliance with the educational requirements of Business and Professions Code section 6540 is in every case a prerequisite to the recovery of paralegal fees" where federal cases cited by the defendant "do not bind us, and in any event they do not hold, and we have found no California state cases holding" such is required

  2. Lerma v. County of Orange

    120 Cal.App.4th 709 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 127 times
    Hearing on motion for summary judgment may be continued for good cause—a determination within the trial court's discretion

  3. Bahl v. Bank of America

    89 Cal.App.4th 389 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 137 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Bahl, the appellate court held that a continuance was justified where the defendant had moved for summary judgment while discovery was still ongoing, the plaintiff was awaiting deposition transcripts essential to oppose the motion, and the defendant produced over 600 pages of documentation after the plaintiff filed her opposition.

  4. Parker v. Wolters Kluwer United States, Inc.

    149 Cal.App.4th 285 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 110 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Reviewing court will not consider arguments contained in documents filed in the trial court and incorporated by reference

  5. Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court

    56 Cal.2d 355 (Cal. 1961)   Cited 291 times   3 Legal Analyses
    In Greyhound, the plaintiff in a personal injury suit arising from a car accident sought written statements that had been obtained from witnesses by the defendant's insurance adjusters and investigators.

  6. Flagship Theatres of Palm Desert, LLC v. Century Theatres, Inc.

    198 Cal.App.4th 1366 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 30 times
    Noting federal law's antitrust injury requirement applies to claims under the Cartwright Act

  7. Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court

    22 Cal.4th 245 (Cal. 2000)   Cited 38 times
    Affirming rule announced in Beverly Hospital

  8. Emerson Elec. Co. v. Superior Court

    16 Cal.4th 1101 (Cal. 1997)   Cited 32 times   3 Legal Analyses

    Docket No. S057119. December 1, 1997. Appeal from Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. MC006881, Ross Amspoker, Temporary Judge. Pursuant to California Constitution, article VI, section 21. COUNSEL Hennelly Grossfeld, John J. Hennelly and Susan J. Williams for Petitioners. Hugh F. Young, Jr., Jan S. Amundson, Harvey M. Grossman, Sherman Joyce, Crowell Moring, Victor E. Schwartz, Mark A. Behrens, Nabil W. Istafanous, D. Dudley Oldham, Pepper, Hamilton Scheetz, Alfred W. Cortese, Jr., Kathleen

  9. Glenfed Dev. Corp. v. Superior Court

    53 Cal.App.4th 1113 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 19 times

    Docket No. B108546. March 27, 1997. Appeal from Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. BC131389, Frances Rothschild, Judge. COUNSEL Cox, Castle Nicholson, Jeffrey D. Masters and Mark Moore for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Horvitz Levy, Peter Abrahams, Andrea M. Gauthier, Murtaugh, Miller, Meyer Nelson, Bradford H. Miller and Gregory M. Heuser for Real Party in Interest. OPINION VOGEL (Miriam A.), J. — BACKGROUND Several lawsuits alleging construction defects were filed against Glenfed