Mendiondo v. Centinela

Holding that the heightened pleading requirements of Rule 9(b) do not apply

People v. Avila

Holding that the trial court had not abused its discretion in denying a motion for mistrial after a prosecution witness referred to the defendants having recently been in prison, and the trial court admonished the jury as to the limited purpose for which the evidence was admitted

Aryeh v. Canon Business Solutions, Inc.

Holding that "[i]nterpretations of federal antitrust law are at most instructive, not conclusive, when construing the Cartwright Act, given that the Cartwright Act was modeled not on federal antitrust statutes but instead on statutes enacted by California's sister states around the turn of the 20th century."

Action v. City of Santa Monica

Recognizing exceptions to the litigation privilege when the statute is more specific than the litigation privilege and would be significantly or wholly inoperable if its enforcement were barred when in conflict with the privilege

Harris v. City of Santa Monica

Holding Fair Employment and Housing Act "does not purport to outlaw discriminatory thoughts, beliefs, or stray remarks that are unconnected to employment decisionmaking."

People v. Hudson

Holding that “for purposes of section 2800.1, a pursuing peace officer's vehicle is ‘distinctively marked’ if its outward appearance during the pursuit exhibits, in addition to a red light and a siren, one or more features that are reasonably visible to other drivers and distinguish it from vehicles not used for law enforcement so as to give reasonable notice to the fleeing motorist that the pursuit is by the police”

Campbell v. Regents of University of California

Holding generally that "where an administrative remedy is provided by statute, relief must be sought from the administrative body and this remedy exhausted before the courts will act" without explicitly addressing exhaustion before the Labor Commissioner under section 98.7

People v. Lamas

In People v. Lamas (2007) 42 Cal.4th 516, 519, 67 Cal.Rptr.3d 179, 169 P.3d 102 (Lamas), we "again consider[ed] the interplay between sections 186.22(a) and 12031(a)(2)(C)," this time specifying the sequence in which those provisions were to be applied.

Kibler v. Northern Inyo County Local Hosp. Dist.

Finding hospital's peer review procedure qualifies as "official proceeding"

Wells v. One2One Learning Foundation

Holding that public school districts were not "persons" subject to suit under FCA because the enumerated list of covered "persons" under the statute does not include any words associated with public entities

Section 1094.5 - Writ issued for purpose of inquiring into validity of final administrative order or decision made in proceeding requiring hearing

Setting forth standard of review

Section 11111 - Professional review

Granting immunity where specified standards of 42 U.S.C. § 11112 have been met

Section 11112 - Standards for professional review actions

Denying immunity if peer review board fails to give physician "adequate notice and hearing procedures"

Section 11113 - Payment of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in defense of suit

Awarding attorney's fee to physician-defendants who defeat claims under “professional review” law that are “frivolous, unreasonable, without foundation, or in bad faith”

Rule 8.500 - Petition for review