§Why CasetextPricing

Plaintiff Zaver Patels Opposition To Defendants Motion To Dismiss With Prejudice

Opposition

7 Cited authorities

  1. Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc.

    174 Cal.App.4th 967 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 220 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Reversing judgment on the cause of action found in defendant's favor and remanding so that trial court may enter default for that claim, and affirming judgment on remaining claims found in plaintiff's favor

  2. Patel v. Liebermensch

    45 Cal.4th 344 (Cal. 2008)   Cited 97 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Patel, the California Supreme Court stated the general rule that "[t]he equitable remedy of specific performance cannot be granted if the terms of a contract are not certain enough for the court to know what to enforce.

  3. Maruman Integrated Circuits v. Consortium Co.

    166 Cal.App.3d 443 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985)   Cited 24 times
    Upholding denial of motion to disqualify opposing counsel

  4. McAvoy v. Hilbert

    172 Cal.App.4th 707 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)

    No. D052802. March 24, 2009. Appeal from the Superior Court of San Diego County, No. GIC878347, Jeffrey B. Barton, Judge. Horwitz, Cron Jasper and Bernard C. Jasper for Cross-defendant and Appellant. The Law Offices of Charles D. Nachand, Charles D. Nachand and Richard B. Hudson for Cross-complainants and Respondents. David J. Gallo for Respondents. OPINION NARES, J. In this action arising out of the sale of a woodworking business owned by Randall K. McAvoy and Trudy K. Esther McAvoy (together, the

  5. Century 21 Butler Realty, Inc. v. Vasquez

    41 Cal.App.4th 888 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 3 times
    In Century 21 Butler Realty, Inc. v. Vasquez, supra, 41 Cal.App.4th at p. 892, we held that an exclusive listing agreement is binding until its date of expiration.

  6. Fellom v. Adams

    274 Cal.App.2d 855 (Cal. Ct. App. 1969)   Cited 15 times

    Docket No. 24599. July 18, 1969. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. Byron Arnold, Judge. Affirmed. Burd, Hunt Quantz, Quantz Tanner and Charles J. Quantz for Defendant and Appellant. George DeLew for Plaintiffs and Respondents. SIMS, J. The defendant Adams has appealed from a judgment which awarded the plaintiffs principal, accrued interest and attorney's fees in an action on a promissory note. He contends, for the first time on appeal, that since

  7. Rule 3.1332 - Motion or application for continuance of trial

    Cal. R. 3.1332   Cited 274 times

    (a) Trial dates are firm To ensure the prompt disposition of civil cases, the dates assigned for a trial are firm. All parties and their counsel must regard the date set for trial as certain. (b)Motion or application A party seeking a continuance of the date set for trial, whether contested or uncontested or stipulated to by the parties, must make the request for a continuance by a noticed motion or an ex parte application under the rules in chapter 4 of this division, with supporting declarations