67 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 223,811 times   273 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an allegation in the complaint that conduct was motivated "solely on account of religion, race, and/or national origin" was conclusory and "not entitled to be assumed true"
  2. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

    550 U.S. 544 (2007)   Cited 239,371 times   362 Legal Analyses
    Holding that allegations of wrongdoing were not plausible because the facts alleged were "consistent with [liability], but just as much in line with a wide swath of" lawful conduct
  3. Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife

    504 U.S. 555 (1992)   Cited 25,049 times   133 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Congress may not "convert the undifferentiated public interest in executive officers' compliance with the law into an individual right vindicable in the courts" (cleaned up)
  4. Los Angeles v. Lyons

    461 U.S. 95 (1983)   Cited 6,922 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 2,218 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 14,919 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 2,993 times   5 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 4,217 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. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. v. White Consolidated Industries, Inc.

    998 F.2d 1192 (3d Cir. 1993)   Cited 5,636 times
    Holding that, when reviewing a motion to dismiss, courts consider "allegations contained in the complaint, exhibits attached to the complaint and matters of public record"
  10. Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co.

    20 Cal.4th 163 (Cal. 1999)   Cited 2,281 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"
  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 306,166 times   845 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 - Reply Brief

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 8   Cited 138,767 times   195 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."
  13. Rule 9 - Pleading Special Matters

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 9   Cited 35,212 times   289 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a plaintiff "state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud" when "alleging fraud"
  14. Section 17200 - Unfair competition defined

    Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200   Cited 16,543 times   291 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting unlawful business practices
  15. Section 17208 - Statute of limitations

    Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17208   Cited 594 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Governing UCL claims
  16. Section 15610.30 - Financial abuse

    Cal. Welf. and Inst. Code § 15610.30   Cited 432 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Defining financial elder abuse
  17. Section 15610.27 - Elder

    Cal. Welf. and Inst. Code § 15610.27   Cited 128 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 52 times

    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 9 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