§Why CasetextPricing

Prancer Capital, Corp. vs. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.

Reply to Opposition

10 Cited authorities

  1. Kim v. Westmoore Partners, Inc.

    201 Cal.App.4th 267 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 206 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Affirming denial of section 473(b) motion where the declarant failed to include specific facts "which the court might have been able to assess in determining whether his failure to respond was actually excusable in the circumstances"

  2. Zalkind v. Ceradyne, Inc.

    194 Cal.App.4th 1010 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 104 times
    Holding that the relation back doctrine did not extend to a provision of California's corporations code, because the purpose of that code was not the same as or similar to that of a statute of limitations, which is to move suits expeditiously toward trial

  3. Bionghi v. Metropolitan Water Dist.

    70 Cal.App.4th 1358 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 122 times
    Holding where causes of action for breach of contract and breach of implied covenant are based on same facts, breach of implied covenant claim is "duplicative" and "may be disregarded"

  4. Vaillette v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co.

    18 Cal.App.4th 680 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 112 times
    Holding that leave to amend should not be granted where in all probability, amendment would be futile

  5. Dodd v. Citizens Bank of Costa Mesa

    222 Cal.App.3d 1624 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990)   Cited 122 times
    Holding that a bank does not owe a duty of care to a noncustomer absent a showing that the noncustomer was an alter ego of, or had personally guaranteed the debts of, the bank's customer

  6. Morrison v. Wilson

    30 Cal. 344 (Cal. 1866)   Cited 23 times
    In Morrison v. Wilson, 30 Cal. 344, it was held that words used in a deed conveying the property in fee-simple absolute will be construed to convey only the present interest of the grantor, and not to pass an after-acquired title, if a clause is inserted declaring that as to title it is only a quitclaim deed; and to the same effect is Montgomery v. Sturdivant, 41 Cal. 290.

  7. Section 1638 - Language governs interpretation

    Cal. Civ. Code § 1638   Cited 1,360 times
    Governing interpretation of contracts

  8. Section 1643 - Lawful, operative, definite, reasonable and capable of being carried into effect

    Cal. Civ. Code § 1643   Cited 494 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Instructing courts to adopt a "lawful" contract interpretation that is "capable of being carried into effect" when possible

  9. Section 439 - Meeting before filing motion for judgment

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 439   Cited 89 times

    (a) Before filing a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to this chapter, the moving party shall meet and confer in person, by telephone, or by video conference with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to the motion for judgment on the pleadings for the purpose of determining if an agreement can be reached that resolves the claims to be raised in the motion for judgment on the pleadings. If an amended pleading is filed, the responding party shall meet and confer again with the

  10. Section 92 - Pleadings allowed

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 92   Cited 10 times

    (a) The pleadings allowed are complaints, answers, cross-complaints, answers to cross-complaints and general demurrers. (b) The answer need not be verified, even if the complaint or cross-complaint is verified. (c) Special demurrers are not allowed. (d) Motions to strike are allowed only on the ground that the damages or relief sought are not supported by the allegations of the complaint. (e) Except as limited by this section, all other motions are permitted. Ca. Civ. Proc. Code § 92 Amended by Stats