§Why CasetextPricing

Rebecca Calderon vs. Walmart

Opposition Other

11 Cited authorities

  1. Montclair Parkowners Assn. v. City of Montclair

    76 Cal.App.4th 784 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 168 times
    In Montclair, the appellate court discussed the appropriate standard of scrutiny for mobile home rent control cases at length before concluding that the reasoning used in Santa Monica Beach applied equally well in mobile home vacancy control cases as it had in apartment rent control.

  2. Del E. Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co.

    123 Cal.App.3d 593 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981)   Cited 242 times
    Holding that an entitlement to future possession is insufficient to maintain an action for conversion

  3. Moore v. Conliffe

    7 Cal.4th 634 (Cal. 1994)   Cited 151 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the litigation privilege applies to "a private, contractual arbitration proceeding"

  4. Friedland v. City of Long Beach

    62 Cal.App.4th 835 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 78 times
    In Friedland, a series of local agency agreements were held to be "contracts" for purposes of section 53511 — and therefore subject to the validation statutes — because they involved agency guarantees of a debt obligation incurred by an independent public benefit corporation that was building an aquarium.

  5. LI v. Majestic Industry Hills, LLC

    177 Cal.App.4th 585 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 43 times
    Moving party could have modified the 21-day safe harbor period by seeking a continuance of the underlying hearing or an order shortening time to serve its sanctions motion

  6. Hart v. Hart

    95 Cal.App.4th 410 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 31 times
    In Hart v. Avetoom (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 410, the moving party filed section 128.7 motion papers that included certain papers (i.e., supplemental points and authorities, additional declarations, and a copy of the motion for summary judgment) not served on the other party before the then 30-day safe harbor period.

  7. Malovec v. Hamrell

    70 Cal.App.4th 434 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 32 times
    In Malovec v. Hamrell, supra, 70 Cal.App.4th at page 441, Division Five of this court held a trial court could not, on its own motion, impose sanctions against an attorney for filing and pursuing an improper action after a summary judgment was granted.

  8. Interstate Specialty Marketing, Inc. v. ICRA Sapphire, Inc.

    217 Cal.App.4th 708 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 8 times   1 Legal Analyses

    G047376 2013-06-27 INTERSTATE SPECIALTY MARKETING, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. ICRA SAPPHIRE, INC., Defendant and Respondent. See 7 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (5th ed. 2008) Trial, § 237 et seq.Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, David R. Chaffee, Judge. Reversed with directions. (Super. Ct. No. 30–2011–00495173) BEDSWORTH Vacated and remanded with directions. See 7 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (5th ed. 2008) Trial, § 237 et seq. Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of

  9. Garton v. Title Ins. Trust Co.

    106 Cal.App.3d 365 (Cal. Ct. App. 1980)   Cited 36 times
    In Garton v. Title Ins. & Trust Co. (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 365, 376 (Garton), plaintiffs alleged "that each of the defendants were the agents and employees of each other and were acting in the course and scope of their agency, employment and authority and with the permission and consent of their codefendants in committing the acts alleged."

  10. Colm v. Francis

    30 Cal.App. 742 (Cal. Ct. App. 1916)   Cited 19 times

    Civ. No. 1519. June 14, 1916. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. J. W. Mahon, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. T. N. Harvey, for Appellant. Matthew S. Platz, for Respondent Mary F. Francis. Geo. E. Whitaker, for Defendant West Virginia Oil Company. HART, J. — This is a suit for the specific performance of a certain contract for a lease, or, more accurately speaking, to compel the defendant, Mary F. Francis, to execute a lease of certain land to the

  11. Section 430.10 - Grounds for objection by party against whom complaint or cross-complaint filed

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10   Cited 1,065 times
    Explaining "[t]he party against whom a complaint ... has been filed may object, by demurrer ..., to the pleading" on the basis that "[t]he pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action"