McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green

Holding in employment discrimination case that statistical evidence of employer's general policy and practice may be relevant circumstantial evidence of discriminatory intent behind individual employment decision

Christiansburg Garment Co. v. Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n

Holding that for a defendant to recoup attorneys fees under § 706(k) of Title VII, a court must find that the plaintiff litigated his or her claim beyond the point where it became “frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless” or where plaintiff acted in bad faith

Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.

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”

Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc.

Holding that an implied covenant "cannot be endowed with an existence independent of its contractual underpinnings. It cannot impose substantive duties or limits on the contracting parties beyond those incorporated in the specific terms of their agreement."

Mendiondo v. Centinela

Holding that the heightened pleading requirements of Rule 9(b) do not apply

Reid v. Google, Inc.

Holding that a high degree of foreseeability is required to impose a duty to hire security guards and that “the requisite degree of foreseeability rarely, if ever, can be proven in the absence of prior similar incidents of violent crime on the landowner's premises”

Morgan v. Regents of University of California

Holding plaintiff "must obtain from the [DFEH] a notice of right to sue in order to be entitled to file a civil action in court based on violations of FEHA"

Harris v. City of Santa Monica

Holding Fair Employment and Housing Act "does not purport to outlaw discriminatory thoughts, beliefs, or stray remarks that are unconnected to employment decisionmaking."

Stevenson v. Superior Court

Holding that plaintiffs must establish that the violated public policy is "fundamental and substantial"

Loggins v. Kaiser Permanente Internat.

Holding plaintiff may establish prima facie case "by producing evidence of nothing more than the proximity in time between the protected action and the allegedly retaliatory employment decision"

Section 1033.5 - Items allowable as costs

Permitting various types of service as costs

Rule 3.1700 - Prejudgment costs