15 Cited authorities

  1. Bruns v. E-Commerce Exchange, Inc.

    51 Cal.4th 717 (Cal. 2011)   Cited 141 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. S172684. 2011-02-28 Dana BRUNS, Plaintiff and Appellant,v.E–COMMERCE EXCHANGE, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents. Law Offices of Kevin M. Tripi and Kevin M. Tripi, Irvine, for Plaintiff and Appellant.Horvitz & Levy, Bradley S. Pauley, Robert H. Wright, Encino; Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara, Nicole Whyte, Stephanie N. Rachel and Alison Hurley, Newport Beach, for Defendant and Respondent E–Commerce Exchange, Inc.Duane Morris, Max H. Stern, W. Andrew Miller and Jessica E. La Londe, San Francisco

  2. Imperial Merchant Ser. v. Hunt

    47 Cal.4th 381 (Cal. 2009)   Cited 103 times

    No. S163577. August 10, 2009. Law Offices of Clark Garen and Clark Garen for Plaintiff and Appellant. Hefner, Stark Marois and Ronald H. Sargis for California Association of Collectors, Inc., as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant. Paul Arons; The Berg Law Group, Irving L. Berg; Horwitz, Horwitz Associates and O. Randolph Bragg III for Defendant and Appellant. OPINION CHIN, J. Civil Code section 1719 permits a payee seeking to recover on a dishonored check to collect a service charge

  3. Brock v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals

    10 Cal.App.4th 1790 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 71 times
    In Brock v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1790, 1795–1796, 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 678 (Brock), the court explained: "A party to a contractual arbitration agreement may compel a recalcitrant party to comply with a valid agreement by means of a petition pursuant to section 1281.2, which is in essence a suit in equity to compel specific performance of the arbitration agreement.
  4. Webster v. Superior Court

    46 Cal.3d 338 (Cal. 1988)   Cited 71 times
    Holding that claimant injured in shooting rampage in offices of insolvent insurer should have been permitted to pursue personal injury claim outside of liquidation process where insurer had liability insurance that would cover any claim plus the expenses of defending it and where claimants stipulated that they would not seek any recovery from the insolvent insurer's assets
  5. Santiago v. D & G Plumbing, Inc.

    155 Cal.App.4th 365 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 23 times

    No. E041294. September 19, 2007. Appeal from the Superior Court of Riverside County, No. INC21215, H. Morgan Dougherty, Judge. Laughlin, Falbo, Levy Moresi and Kermit N. Sprang for Intervener and Appellant. Ault, Schonfeld, Jordan Munro and Jeffrey L. Ebright for Defendants and Respondents MR Development, Inc., and Juan Gabriel Fernandez. Lee, Bazzo, Nishi, Ted M. Lee and Allison M. Hunt for Defendant and Respondent D and G Plumbing, Inc. OPINION GAUT, J. Intervener and appellant Star Insurance Company

  6. Au-Yang v. Barton

    21 Cal.4th 958 (Cal. 1999)   Cited 24 times
    In Au-Yang v. Barton (1999) 21 Cal.4th 958, the court reiterated that the 15-day notice period in Code of Civil Procedure section 594, subdivision (a) is mandatory. (Au-Yang v. Barton, supra, at p. 963.)
  7. Brunzell Constr. Co. v. Wagner

    2 Cal.3d 545 (Cal. 1970)   Cited 44 times
    In Brunzell Constr. Co. v. Wagner, 2 Cal.3d 545 [ 86 Cal.Rptr. 297, 468 P.2d 553], the court held that the "impracticable and futile" exception could apply where legal complexities made it possible but not sensible for the plaintiff to proceed.
  8. People v. Santana

    182 Cal.App.3d 185 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 19 times
    In Santana, the striking of the prior conviction allegation did not "wipe out prior convictions" or prevent them from being considered in connection with future convictions.
  9. Marcus v. Superior Court

    75 Cal.App.3d 204 (Cal. Ct. App. 1977)   Cited 27 times

    Docket No. 17977. November 18, 1977. COUNSEL Mitchell, Silberberg Knupp, Howard S. Smith and David S. Gubman for Petitioners. No appearance for Respondent. Howard G. Sonksen and Fred S. Pardes for Real Party in Interest. OPINION KAUFMAN, J. The petitioners filed a motion to stay proceedings pending the outcome of an arbitration proceeding which was ordered pursuant to a motion to compel arbitration. The motion to stay proceedings was denied. Petitioners seek a writ of mandate. We have concluded that

  10. People v. Calhoun

    141 Cal.App.3d 117 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983)   Cited 18 times
    In People v. Calhoun, supra, 141 Cal.App.3d 117, the appellate court considered whether the trial court could stay the execution of the enhancement of a sentence under section 12022.5 for a firearm use.
  11. Section 362 - Automatic stay

    11 U.S.C. § 362   Cited 24,772 times   79 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that cause exists to lift the stay because no bankruptcy purpose would be served by keeping the stay in place