39 Cited authorities

  1. Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.

    25 Cal.4th 826 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 4,529 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that the gathering and dissemination of pricing information by the petroleum companies through an independent industry service did not imply collusive action where there was no evidence the information was misused as a basis for an unlawful conspiracy; rather, evidence suggested that individual companies used all available resources “to determine capacity, supply, and pricing decisions which would maximize their own individual profits”
  2. Waller v. Truck Ins. Exchange, Inc.

    11 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1995)   Cited 1,663 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, when extrinsic facts eliminate the potential for coverage, an insurer may decline to defend even if the complaint had suggested potential liability
  3. Abdallah v. United Savings Bank

    43 Cal.App.4th 1101 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 465 times
    Holding that court did not err in declining to apportion fees given that contract and non-contract claims were "inextricably intertwined" and that it was "impracticable, if not impossible" to separate fees arising from each
  4. FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashima

    231 Cal.App.3d 367 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 275 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Affirming summary judgment
  5. Binder v. Aetna Life Ins. Co.

    75 Cal.App.4th 832 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 211 times
    Holding that consent to a contract may be manifested by conduct
  6. Alki Partners, LP v. DB Fund Servs., LLC

    4 Cal.App.5th 574 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 120 times
    Noting that indemnity agreements generally do not allow for the recovery of attorney fees incurred in an action for breach of contract between the parties to that agreement, but that an exception exists where the indemnity provision includes express language providing for attorneys' fees incurred in enforcing the agreement
  7. Pfeifer v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.

    211 Cal.App.4th 1250 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 130 times
    Recognizing the fifth exception to the tender requirement
  8. Brown Bark III, L.P. v. Haver

    219 Cal.App.4th 809 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 113 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing allocation "generally is required when the same lawyer represents one party that is entitled to recover its attorney fees and another party that is not"
  9. Barroso v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC

    208 Cal.App.4th 1001 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 83 times
    Holding that the plaintiff could amend her cause of action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing because under the terms of the Modification Agreement, the defendant was obligated to modify plaintiff's loan documents
  10. Cytodyn v. Amerimmune

    160 Cal.App.4th 288 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 82 times
    Enumerating the required elements for a trade secret misappropriation claim
  11. Section 437c - Motion for summary judgment

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 437c   Cited 7,895 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Ruling on summary judgment motion must be based on "papers submitted" with the motion
  12. Section 3 - Retroactive effect

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 3   Cited 572 times
    Stating same as to Code of Civil Procedure — which, as its name indicates, deals with procedure
  13. Section 1010 - Requirements of notices; service of notices and other papers

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1010   Cited 351 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Concerning parties in default
  14. Rule 3.1350 - Motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication

    Cal. R. 3.1350   Cited 220 times

    (a) Definitions As used in this rule, (1) "Motion" refers to either a motion for summary judgment or a motion for summary adjudication. (2) "Material facts" are facts that relate to the cause of action, claim for damages, issue of duty, or affirmative defense that is the subject of the motion and that could make a difference in the disposition of the motion. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2016.) (b) Motion for summary adjudication If made in the alternative, a motion for summary adjudication