§Why CasetextPricing

ARYEH v. CANON BUSINESS SOLUTIONS

Appellant's Reply to Answer to Petition for Review

11 Cited authorities

  1. Yanowitz v. L'Oreal USA Inc.

    36 Cal.4th 1028 (Cal. 2005)   Cited 1,529 times   11 Legal Analyses
    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."

  2. In re Tobacco II Cases

    46 Cal.4th 298 (Cal. 2009)   Cited 1,202 times   35 Legal Analyses
    Holding class representatives had standing to challenge common marketing of cigarettes despite differences in the advertisements or statements on which class members relied

  3. Richards v. CH2M Hill, Inc.

    26 Cal.4th 798 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 391 times   4 Legal Analyses
    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"

  4. Stop Youth Addiction, Inc. v. Lucky Stores, Inc.

    17 Cal.4th 553 (Cal. 1998)   Cited 287 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that “the fact a UCL action is based upon, or may even promote the achievement of, policy ends underlying section 308 or the STAKE Act, does not, of itself, transform the action into one for the ‘enforcement’ of section 308”

  5. Komarova v. National Credit Acceptance, Inc.

    175 Cal.App.4th 324 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 133 times
    Holding that the violations that occurred during the continuing course of making harassing phone calls were not barred by the statute of limitations

  6. Alch v. Superior Court

    122 Cal.App.4th 339 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 106 times
    Holding talent agencies that did not employ the plaintiffs could be liable for aiding and abetting their employers' alleged "systemic discrimination" in violation of FEHA

  7. Snapp Assoc. Ins. Serv. v. Robertson

    96 Cal.App.4th 884 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 83 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding discovery rule does not apply

  8. Monastra v. Konica Business Machines, U.S.A., Inc.

    43 Cal.App.4th 1628 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 55 times

    Docket No. B084674. March 28, 1996. Appeal from Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. KC013904, Theodore D. Piatt, Judge. COUNSEL George S.L. Dunlop for Plaintiff and Appellant. Cutler Cutler, Richard B. Cutler and Claudia Ribet for Defendants and Respondents. OPINION CROSKEY, J. In this case of first impression, we are called upon to determine whether compliance with the notice requirements of California's Bulk Sales Act (Cal. U. Com. Code, § 6101 et seq.; formerly the Bulk Transfer Act) insulates

  9. Betz v. Trainer Wortham & Co.

    236 F. App'x 253 (9th Cir. 2007)   Cited 12 times
    Applying delayed discovery rule to breach of fiduciary duty claim brought under section 343

  10. ARYEH v. CANON Bus. SOLUTIONS Inc.

    No. B213104 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 22, 2010)

    B213104 No. BC 384674 06-22-2010 JAMSHID ARYEH, Plaintiff and Appellant,v.CANON BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant and Respondent. Westrup Klick, R. Duane Westrup, Mark L. Van Buskirk, Jennifer L. Conner;Krieger & Krieger, Linda Guthamnn Krieger and Terrence B. Krieger for Plaintiff andAppellant.Dorsey & Whitney, Kent J. Schmidt, John P. Cleveland, Richard H. Silberbergand Robert G. Manson for Defendant and Respondent. FLIER, J. Westrup Klick, R. Duane Westrup, Mark L. Van Buskirk, Jennifer L. Conner;

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

    Cal. R. 8.504   Cited 21 times

    (a)In general Except as provided in this rule, a petition for review, answer, and reply must comply with the relevant provisions of rule 8.204. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2007.) (b) Contents of a petition (1) The body of the petition must begin with a concise, nonargumentative statement of the issues presented for review, framing them in terms of the facts of the case but without unnecessary detail. (2) The petition must explain how the case presents a ground for review under rule 8.500(b)