11 Cited authorities

Rakestraw v. California Physicians' Service
81 Cal.App.4th 39 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) Cited 486 times
Requiring party to "clearly and specifically set forth the ‘applicable substantive law’ and the legal basis for amendment, i.e., the elements of the cause of action and authority for it," and all specific factual allegations for the claim
Campbell v. Regents of University of California
35 Cal.4th 311 (Cal. 2005) Cited 372 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding generally that "where an administrative remedy is provided by statute, relief must be sought from the administrative body and this remedy exhausted before the courts will act" without explicitly addressing exhaustion before the Labor Commissioner under section 98.7
McAllister v. County of Monterey
147 Cal.App.4th 253 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) Cited 89 times 4 Legal Analyses
Concluding that the language regarding the time to respond to a complaint set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 430.40 is not mandatory, especially with respect to the time limit for demurring to an amended complaint
Sanchez v. Swinerton Walberg Co.
47 Cal.App.4th 1461 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996) Cited 77 times 1 Legal Analyses
In Sanchez, the defendants were a general contractor that constructed a building, and a concrete subcontractor that poured walkways, and entrance ramp, a stairway, and a landing at the entrance of the building.
Neiman v. Leo A. Daly Co.
210 Cal.App.4th 962 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) Cited 35 times 1 Legal Analyses
In Neiman v. Leo A. Daly Co. (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 962, 148 Cal.Rptr.3d 818, for example, the plaintiff alleged that improperly “ ‘marked and delineated’ ” stairs at the theatre caused her to fall while walking down the stairs.
Burt v. County of Orange
120 Cal.App.4th 273 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) Cited 35 times
Requiring reasonable opportunity to be heard
Bailey v. Safeway, Inc.
199 Cal.App.4th 206 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) Cited 20 times
In Bailey, the California Court of Appeals rejected the manufacturer's equitable indemnity claim against a retailer because a jury had found that the retailer was not "negligent or independently at fault, but found to be liable solely under the strict liability theory of design defect."
Verizon California Inc. v. Board of Equalization
230 Cal.App.4th 666 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) Cited 13 times
C074179 10-15-2014 VERIZON CALIFORNIA INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BOARD OF EQUALIZATION et al., Defendants and Respondents. O'Melveny & Myers, Carla J. Christofferson, Dimitri D. Portnoi, Smita Reddy, Melanie P. Ochoa, Los Angeles; Sutherland Asbill & Brennan, Carley A. Roberts and Douglas Mo, Sacramento, for Plaintiff and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Paul D. Gifford, Assistant Attorney General, Molly K. Mosley, Robert E. Asperger and Serajul F. Ali, Deputy Attorneys General
Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now v. Department of Industrial Relations
41 Cal.App.4th 298 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995) Cited 9 times
Docket No. A069744. December 21, 1995. Appeal from Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, No. 962283, William J. Cahill, Judge. COUNSEL Brian J. McCaffrey and Steve Bachmann for Plaintiff and Appellant. H. Thomas Cadell, Jr., for Defendant and Respondent. OPINION KING, J. — I. INTRODUCTION In this case we hold that California's minimum wage laws are not unconstitutional as applied to an organization whose purpose is political advocacy, because the compelling state interest in ensuring
Sher v. Leiderman
181 Cal.App.3d 867 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986) Cited 18 times
Docket No. H000859. May 29, 1986. Appeal from Superior Court of Santa Clara County, No. P40832, Taketsugu Takei, Judge. Assigned by the Chairperson of the Judicial Council. COUNSEL Paul P. Spaulding III, Dinkelspiel, Donovan Reder and Victor M. Sher for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Mark J. Solomon for Defendants and Respondents. OPINION BRAUER, J. Rudolph and Bonnie Sher appeal from a judgment against them in favor of P. Herbert and Gloria Leiderman following a court trial. Their appeal presents an
Rule 5 - Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers
Fed. R. Civ. P. 5 Cited 23,013 times 16 Legal Analyses
Allowing service by filing papers with the court's electronic-filing system

Reply To Opposition Other

11 Cited authorities

Requiring party to "clearly and specifically set forth the ‘applicable substantive law’ and the legal basis for amendment, i.e., the elements of the cause of action and authority for it," and all specific factual allegations for the claim

Holding generally that "where an administrative remedy is provided by statute, relief must be sought from the administrative body and this remedy exhausted before the courts will act" without explicitly addressing exhaustion before the Labor Commissioner under section 98.7

Concluding that the language regarding the time to respond to a complaint set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 430.40 is not mandatory, especially with respect to the time limit for demurring to an amended complaint

In Sanchez, the defendants were a general contractor that constructed a building, and a concrete subcontractor that poured walkways, and entrance ramp, a stairway, and a landing at the entrance of the building.

In Neiman v. Leo A. Daly Co. (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 962, 148 Cal.Rptr.3d 818, for example, the plaintiff alleged that improperly “ ‘marked and delineated’ ” stairs at the theatre caused her to fall while walking down the stairs.

Requiring reasonable opportunity to be heard

In Bailey, the California Court of Appeals rejected the manufacturer's equitable indemnity claim against a retailer because a jury had found that the retailer was not "negligent or independently at fault, but found to be liable solely under the strict liability theory of design defect."

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