Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman

Holding that an allegation in the complaint that the plaintiff organization "has had to devote significant resources to identify and counteract the defendant's" illegal practices was sufficient to confer standing to the organization in its own right at the pleading stage

Yanowitz v. L'Oreal USA Inc.

Holding that to establish a "protected activity," an "employee's communications to the employer [must] sufficiently convey the employee's reasonable concerns that the employer has acted or is acting in an unlawful discriminatory manner."

Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp.

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"

In re Tobacco II Cases

Holding class representatives had standing to challenge common marketing of cigarettes despite differences in the advertisements or statements on which class members relied

Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc.

Holding that "[r]esolution of the statute of limitations issue is normally a question of fact."

Daugherty v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

Holding plaintiff failed to plead a fraudulent omission where "no representation was made to which the alleged concealment was contrary"

Californians for Disability Rights v. Mervyn's LLC

Referring to "uninjured persons" suing under the UCL as "private attorneys general"

Richards v. CH2M Hill, Inc.

Holding that, in the context of FEHA claims, "[i]f the employer has made clear in word and deed that the employee's attempted further reasonable accommodation is futile, then the employee is on notice that litigation, not informal conciliation, is the only alternative for the vindication of his or her rights"

Grisham v. Philip Morris U.S.A., Inc.

Holding a cigarette smoker's reliance on tobacco companies' misrepresentations of the addictive nature of cigarettes was unreasonable once she suspected she was addicted to cigarettes, as evidenced by her decision to join "Nicotine Anonymous"

Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. City of La Habra

Holding that city's continued imposition and collection of a tax without voter approval was a continuous violation, and therefore limitations period began anew with each collection and did not bar claims for declaratory and mandamus relief

Rule 8.504 - Form and contents of petition, answer, and reply