23 Cited authorities

City of Cotati v. Cashman
29 Cal.4th 69 (Cal. 2002) Cited 1,270 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding "the mere fact an action was filed after protected activity took place does not mean it arose from that activity"; rejecting defendant's argument that plaintiff's complaint "arose" from defendant's having previously filed lawsuit, where plaintiff's complaint "contain[ed] no reference to the [defendant's] action"
Gorman v. Tassajara Development Corp.
178 Cal.App.4th 44 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) Cited 323 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that meals are not recoverable under Cal. Civ. P.Code § 1033.5.
Myers Building Industries, Ltd. v. Interface Technology, Inc.
13 Cal.App.4th 949 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993) Cited 261 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding indemnification clause did not support award of attorney fees to prevailing party in action between parties to the contract
Zalkind v. Ceradyne, Inc.
194 Cal.App.4th 1010 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) Cited 106 times
Holding that the relation back doctrine did not extend to a provision of California's corporations code, because the purpose of that code was not the same as or similar to that of a statute of limitations, which is to move suits expeditiously toward trial
Rossmoor Sanitation, Inc. v. Pylon, Inc.
13 Cal.3d 622 (Cal. 1975) Cited 276 times 2 Legal Analyses
Noting that "while such clauses may be construed to provide indemnity for a loss resulting in part from an indemnitee's passive negligence, they will not be interpreted to provide indemnity if an indemnitee has been actively negligent"
Total Call Intl. v. Peerless Ins. Co.
181 Cal.App.4th 161 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) Cited 90 times 2 Legal Analyses
Noting that an exclusion "discloses no suggestion that it relates exclusively to [claims brought by consumers and not to claims brought by competitors]; its language is broad and unqualified"
Align Technology, Inc. v. Tran
179 Cal.App.4th 949 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) Cited 79 times
Holding "legislative purpose of former section 439, the predecessor of section 426.30 . . . was to provide for the settlement, in a single action, of all conflicting claims between the parties arising out of the same transaction" and to "avoid a multiplicity of actions"
Peredia v. HR Mobile Servs., Inc.
25 Cal.App.5th 680 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) Cited 48 times
Setting forth elements of negligence claim
Herrington v. Superior Court
107 Cal.App.4th 1052 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) Cited 74 times
In Orrick, the California Court of Appeal held the fees a client paid to his attorney could "constitute actual damages" to the extent the client was "claiming he paid more than the value of the legal services he received."
Prentice v. North Am. Title Guaranty Corp., Alameda Division
59 Cal.2d 618 (Cal. 1963) Cited 218 times
Holding that where a vendor of land was required by the negligence of a third party to bring a quiet title suit to protect its interests, the vendor was entitled to recover from the third party the expenditures and attorney's fees paid in the quiet title suit

memorandum of points and authorities in support of demurrer to jonatha

23 Cited authorities

Holding that meals are not recoverable under Cal. Civ. P.Code § 1033.5.

Holding indemnification clause did not support award of attorney fees to prevailing party in action between parties to the contract

Holding that the relation back doctrine did not extend to a provision of California's corporations code, because the purpose of that code was not the same as or similar to that of a statute of limitations, which is to move suits expeditiously toward trial

Noting that "while such clauses may be construed to provide indemnity for a loss resulting in part from an indemnitee's passive negligence, they will not be interpreted to provide indemnity if an indemnitee has been actively negligent"

Noting that an exclusion "discloses no suggestion that it relates exclusively to [claims brought by consumers and not to claims brought by competitors]; its language is broad and unqualified"

Holding "legislative purpose of former section 439, the predecessor of section 426.30 . . . was to provide for the settlement, in a single action, of all conflicting claims between the parties arising out of the same transaction" and to "avoid a multiplicity of actions"

Setting forth elements of negligence claim

In Orrick, the California Court of Appeal held the fees a client paid to his attorney could "constitute actual damages" to the extent the client was "claiming he paid more than the value of the legal services he received."

Holding that where a vendor of land was required by the negligence of a third party to bring a quiet title suit to protect its interests, the vendor was entitled to recover from the third party the expenditures and attorney's fees paid in the quiet title suit