9 Cited authorities

City of Stockton v. Superior Court
42 Cal.4th 730 (Cal. 2007) Cited 664 times
Holding that contract claims are subject to the CTCA's presentment requirement; adding that the CTCA is better referred to as the Government Claims Act "to reduce confusion"
Roby v. McKesson Corp.
47 Cal.4th 686 (Cal. 2009) Cited 536 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding "there is no basis for excluding evidence of biased personnel management actions so long as that evidence is relevant to prove the communication of a hostile message"
Angie M. v. Superior Court
37 Cal.App.4th 1217 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995) Cited 103 times
Holding that the lower court properly dismissed the plaintiff's claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress because "[the plaintiff] pleaded no facts demonstrating the nature, extent or duration of her alleged emotional distress"
Stevens v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County
75 Cal.App.4th 594 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999) Cited 70 times
Holding that plaintiff may bring a claim under the UCL based on a violation of insurance licensing requirements because the statutes did not bar private enforcement
Clauson v. Superior Court
67 Cal.App.4th 1253 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) Cited 36 times
Deciding whether plaintiffs could seek at the pleading stage punitive damages and statutory penalties for unlawful wiretapping
Grieves v. Superior Court
157 Cal.App.3d 159 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984) Cited 43 times
Directing trial court to grant motion to strike punitive damages where plaintiff alleged only negligence and no intentional conduct
McDonald v. Superior Court
180 Cal.App.3d 297 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986) Cited 37 times
In McDonald, the court held, "Unless the complaint shows on its face that it is incapable of amendment, denial of leave to amend constitutes an abuse of discretion, irrespective of whether leave to amend is requested or not.
Capitol City Foods, Inc. v. Superior Court
5 Cal.App.4th 1042 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992) Cited 14 times
Harassing conduct outside the workplace must occur in a work-related context
Rule 5 - Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers
Fed. R. Civ. P. 5 Cited 22,753 times 16 Legal Analyses
Allowing service by filing papers with the court's electronic-filing system

Opposition To Mts

9 Cited authorities

Holding that contract claims are subject to the CTCA's presentment requirement; adding that the CTCA is better referred to as the Government Claims Act "to reduce confusion"

Holding "there is no basis for excluding evidence of biased personnel management actions so long as that evidence is relevant to prove the communication of a hostile message"

Holding that the lower court properly dismissed the plaintiff's claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress because "[the plaintiff] pleaded no facts demonstrating the nature, extent or duration of her alleged emotional distress"

Holding that plaintiff may bring a claim under the UCL based on a violation of insurance licensing requirements because the statutes did not bar private enforcement

Deciding whether plaintiffs could seek at the pleading stage punitive damages and statutory penalties for unlawful wiretapping

Directing trial court to grant motion to strike punitive damages where plaintiff alleged only negligence and no intentional conduct

In McDonald, the court held, "Unless the complaint shows on its face that it is incapable of amendment, denial of leave to amend constitutes an abuse of discretion, irrespective of whether leave to amend is requested or not.

Harassing conduct outside the workplace must occur in a work-related context

Allowing service by filing papers with the court's electronic-filing system