64 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 251,360 times   279 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a claim is plausible where a plaintiff's allegations enable the court to draw a "reasonable inference" the defendant is liable
  2. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

    550 U.S. 544 (2007)   Cited 265,336 times   364 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a complaint's allegations should "contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face' "
  3. Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife

    504 U.S. 555 (1992)   Cited 27,710 times   138 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the elements of standing "must be supported in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof"
  4. Los Angeles v. Lyons

    461 U.S. 95 (1983)   Cited 7,488 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding there is no justiciable controversy where plaintiff had once been subjected to a chokehold
  5. FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas

    493 U.S. 215 (1990)   Cited 2,365 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the burden is on the plaintiff to allege facts sufficient to establish jurisdiction (quoting McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936))
  6. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept

    901 F.2d 696 (9th Cir. 1988)   Cited 15,932 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a cognizable gender discrimination claim could be brought by a female domestic violence victim where the victim alleged police denied protection and made misogynistic comments including that "he did not blame [the victim's] husband for hitting her, because of the way she was 'carrying on'"
  7. Simon v. E. Ky. Welfare Rights Org.

    426 U.S. 26 (1976)   Cited 3,181 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding plaintiffs who sued IRS lacked standing where they hoped reversal of IRS rule would " ‘discourage’ hospitals from denying their services to" plaintiffs, but whether hospitals had denied services based on the existing rule remained unclear and, even if the rule were reversed, hospitals would remain free to not provide services to plaintiffs
  8. Abrego Abrego v. the Dow Chemical Co.

    443 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 2006)   Cited 4,422 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the silence of the Class Action Fairness Act regarding the burden of proving removal jurisdiction indicated Congressional intent to leave intact the common law rule placing the burden on the defendant
  9. Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co.

    20 Cal.4th 163 (Cal. 1999)   Cited 2,417 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Holding that for an act to be "unfair," it must "threaten" a violation of law or "violate the policy or spirit of one of those laws because its effects are comparable to or the same as a violation of the law"
  10. Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp.

    29 Cal.4th 1134 (Cal. 2003)   Cited 1,652 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiff cannot recover damages under Cal. Bus. Prof. Code § 17200 unless plaintiff has "an ownership interest in the money it seeks to recover"
  11. Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 12   Cited 344,399 times   920 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
  12. Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 8   Cited 155,442 times   193 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."
  13. Section 17200 - Unfair competition defined

    Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200   Cited 17,788 times   315 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting unlawful business practices
  14. Section 2 - Judicial Power and Jurisdiction

    U.S. Const. art. III, § 2   Cited 10,448 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Granting federal courts power only to resolve “cases” and “controversies”
  15. Section 17208 - Statute of limitations

    Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17208   Cited 629 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Governing UCL claims
  16. Section 15610.30 - Financial abuse

    Cal. Welf. and Inst. Code § 15610.30   Cited 470 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Defining financial elder abuse
  17. Section 15610.27 - Elder

    Cal. Welf. and Inst. Code § 15610.27   Cited 143 times
    Defining "elder" as "any person residing in this state, 65 years of age or older"
  18. Section 15657.7 - Limitation of action for damages for financial abuse of elder or dependent adult

    Cal. Welf. and Inst. Code § 15657.7   Cited 57 times   1 Legal Analyses

    An action for damages pursuant to Sections 15657.5 and 15657.6 for financial abuse of an elder or dependent adult, as defined in Section 15610.30, shall be commenced within four years after the plaintiff discovers or, through the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have discovered, the facts constituting the financial abuse. Ca. Welf. and Inst. Code § 15657.7 Added by Stats 2008 ch 475 (SB 1140),s 4, eff. 1/1/2009.

  19. Section 15657.6 - Return of property taken upon demand

    Cal. Welf. and Inst. Code § 15657.6   Cited 11 times

    A person or entity that takes, secretes, appropriates, obtains, or retains, or assists in taking, secreting, appropriating, obtaining, or retaining the real or personal property of an elder or dependent adult when the elder or dependent adult lacks capacity pursuant to Section 812 of the Probate Code, or is of unsound mind, but not entirely without understanding, pursuant to Section 39 of the Civil Code, shall, upon demand by the elder or dependent adult or a representative of the elder or dependent