14 Cited authorities

Hunt v. Cromartie
526 U.S. 541 (1999) Cited 2,876 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the court must resolve all reasonable inferences and doubts in the nonmoving party's favor and construe all evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party
Lazar v. Superior Court
12 Cal.4th 631 (Cal. 1996) Cited 1,658 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that justifiable reliance is a required element of a fraud claim
City of Hope Nat. Medical Center v. Genentech, Inc.
43 Cal.4th 375 (Cal. 2008) Cited 387 times
Holding that when "ascertaining the intent of the parties at the time the contract was executed depends on the credibility of extrinsic evidence, that credibility determination and the interpretation of the contract are questions of fact that may properly be resolved by the jury"
Pacific Gas E. Co. v. G.W. Thomas Drayage Etc. Co.
69 Cal.2d 33 (Cal. 1968) Cited 1,022 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the court erroneously refused to consider extrinsic evidence offered to prove the meaning of a provision to which it was reasonably susceptible
City Solutions, Inc. v. Clear Channel
365 F.3d 835 (9th Cir. 2004) Cited 132 times
Holding that "the jury could have reasonably inferred" that defendant was guilty of common law misappropriation because it used plaintiff's "confidential bidding strategies" which plaintiff "invested substantial time and skill" in developing
First Nat. Mtg. v. Fed. Realty Inv. Trust
631 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2011) Cited 83 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the district court “properly valued the option as of the date of the breach.... [T]he mere fact that [Plaintiff] would have exercised its option at some particular time in the future does not mean that it gets to receive the value as of that date.”
F.B.T. Productions, LLC v. Aftermath Records
621 F.3d 958 (9th Cir. 2010) Cited 47 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that a court may reconsider a question of law that was raised "at some point before the judge submitted the case to the jury" where argument does not rest on the sufficiency of the evidence
Crestview Cemetery Assn. v. Dieden
54 Cal.2d 744 (Cal. 1960) Cited 153 times
Using the actions of the two parties, which disclosed their intent "with crystal clarity," to interpret an otherwise undocumented oral contract
Flagship West, LLC v. Excel Realty Partners, L.P.
758 F. Supp. 2d 1004 (E.D. Cal. 2010) Cited 6 times
No. CV-F-02-5200 OWW/DLB. December 20, 2010. John D. Fairbrook, Trainor Fairbrook, Sacramento, CA, Whitney F. Washburn, Law Offices of Whitney F. Washburn, Folsom, CA, for Plaintiffs. Christopher N. Jones, Mark E. Kogan, Kogan, Trichon Wertheimer, P.C., Philadelphia, PA, Stephen E. Carroll, McCor-mick Barstow Sheppard Wayte and Car-ruth LLP, Fresno, CA, Mark H. Epstein, Munger Tolles Olson LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants. MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR INTERPRETATION
Adobe Sys. Inc. v. Hoops Enter. LLC
No. C 10-2769 CW (N.D. Cal. Jun. 15, 2012)
No. C 10-2769 CW 06-15-2012 ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED, Plaintiff, v. HOOPS ENTERPRISE LLC; and ANTHONY KORNRUMPF, Defendants. AND ALL RELATED CLAIMS CLAUDIA WILKEN ORDER GRANTING PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT On June 1, 2012, the Court converted Plaintiff Adobe Systems Incorporated's first motion in limine, addressing the defense raised by Defendants Anthony Kornrumpf and Hoops Enterprise LLC that the prior settlement agreement between the parties granted Defendants permission to sell OEM software outside
Rule 56 - Summary Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Cited 328,503 times 158 Legal Analyses
Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
Section 1641 - Whole of contract taken together
Cal. Civ. Code § 1641 Cited 1,221 times 1 Legal Analyses
Specifying that, when interpreting the language of a contract, the court should give effect to every provision
Section 1654 - Interpretation against party causing uncertainty
Cal. Civ. Code § 1654 Cited 671 times 2 Legal Analyses
Codifying the doctrine of contra proferentem

Antonick v. Electronic Arts, Inc.,

14 Cited authorities

Holding that the court must resolve all reasonable inferences and doubts in the nonmoving party's favor and construe all evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party

Holding that justifiable reliance is a required element of a fraud claim

Holding that when "ascertaining the intent of the parties at the time the contract was executed depends on the credibility of extrinsic evidence, that credibility determination and the interpretation of the contract are questions of fact that may properly be resolved by the jury"

Holding that the court erroneously refused to consider extrinsic evidence offered to prove the meaning of a provision to which it was reasonably susceptible

Holding that "the jury could have reasonably inferred" that defendant was guilty of common law misappropriation because it used plaintiff's "confidential bidding strategies" which plaintiff "invested substantial time and skill" in developing

Holding that the district court “properly valued the option as of the date of the breach.... [T]he mere fact that [Plaintiff] would have exercised its option at some particular time in the future does not mean that it gets to receive the value as of that date.”

Holding that a court may reconsider a question of law that was raised "at some point before the judge submitted the case to the jury" where argument does not rest on the sufficiency of the evidence

Using the actions of the two parties, which disclosed their intent "with crystal clarity," to interpret an otherwise undocumented oral contract

Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

Specifying that, when interpreting the language of a contract, the court should give effect to every provision

Codifying the doctrine of contra proferentem