8 Cited authorities

  1. Trujillo v. North County Transit Dist.

    63 Cal.App.4th 280 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 485 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the statutory language of § 12940 does not "support recovery on . . . a private right of action where there has been a specific factual finding that [the alleged] discrimination or harassment actually occurred at the plaintiffs's workplace"
  2. Doe v. City of Los Angeles

    42 Cal.4th 531 (Cal. 2007)   Cited 267 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding courts construing California statutes "may not broaden or narrow the scope of the provision by reading into it language that does not appear in it or reading out of it language that does."
  3. C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School District

    53 Cal.4th 861 (Cal. 2012)   Cited 227 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Finding that supervisory personnel could be vicariously liable and noting that "public school personnel may be individually liable for their negligent failure to protect students from harm at others' hands"
  4. Selby Realty Co. v. City of San Buenaventura

    10 Cal.3d 110 (Cal. 1973)   Cited 252 times
    Holding that no actual controversy existed between property owner and county where general plan showed streets running through owner's property because plan could not be read to constitute "present concrete indication that the county either intends to use [the owner's] property for the proposed streets or that it intends to acquire the property by condemnation"
  5. Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co.

    116 Cal.App.4th 968 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 55 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the California Unfair Business Competition Law allowed plaintiff to sue to enjoin the insurer's activity to benefit others even though plaintiff had never been personally injured by it
  6. A.M. v. Albertsons, LLC

    178 Cal.App.4th 455 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 42 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding even if employer makes efforts at accommodation, a single failure to reasonably accommodate an employee is sufficient to find liability
  7. Northrop Grumman v. W.C.A.B

    103 Cal.App.4th 1021 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 53 times   1 Legal Analyses

    B157612 Filed November 21, 2002 Certified for Partial Publication Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 976(b) and 976.1, this opinion is certified for publication with the exception of part III.C. PROCEEDINGS to review a decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, W.C.A.B. No. VNO385770, Reversed and Remanded. Kegel, Tobin Truce and E. Charles Maki for Petitioners. No appearance on behalf of Respondents. TURNER, P.J. I. INTRODUCTION Northrop Grumman Corporation (Northrop) and the

  8. Rule 4 - Summons

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 4   Cited 73,881 times   129 Legal Analyses
    Holding that if defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on a motion, or on its own following notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made by a certain time