§Why CasetextPricing

SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON v. J-M MANUFACTURING

Respondent’s Request for Judicial Notice

49 Cited authorities

  1. Flatt v. Superior Court

    9 Cal.4th 275 (Cal. 1994)   Cited 365 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that where the requisite substantial relationship exists, "access to confidential information by the attorney in the course of the first representation (relevant, by definition, to the second representation) is presumed and disqualification of the attorney's representation of the second client is mandatory; indeed, the disqualification extends vicariously to the entire firm"

  2. Arce v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc.

    181 Cal.App.4th 471 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 188 times
    Holding that the defendant's "alleged practice of categorically denying coverage" of certain services for autism-related disorders purportedly encompassed by the terms of a health care plan was sufficient to state a class action UCL claim

  3. City and County of San Francisco v. Cobra Solutions Inc.

    38 Cal.4th 839 (Cal. 2006)   Cited 188 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding Pen. Code, § 1424 inapplicable to civil action filed by city attorney

  4. Pringle v. La Chapelle

    73 Cal.App.4th 1000 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 186 times
    In Pringle, the state court held that a trial court may consider “ ‘the gravity and timing of the violation, its willfulness, its effect on the value of the lawyer's work for the client, any other threatened or actual harm to the client, and the adequacy of other remedies' ” in determining whether and to what extent fee forfeiture is appropriate.

  5. Mardirossian v. Ersoff

    153 Cal.App.4th 257 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 147 times
    Concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in an attorney fees award case, in part, because, despite a lack of billing records, the Mardirossian attorneys had personal knowledge of the legal work they performed and "each testified at length concerning the work he or she performed, the complexity of the issues and the extent of the work that was required"

  6. Seelig v. Infinity Broadcasting Corp.

    97 Cal.App.4th 798 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 166 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[t]he phrase big skank is not actionable because it is too vague to be capable of being proven true or false" and "the term skank constitutes rhetorical hyperbole which no listener could reasonably have interpreted to be a statement of actual fact"

  7. Concat LP v. Unilever, PLC

    350 F. Supp. 2d 796 (N.D. Cal. 2004)   Cited 152 times
    Holding that disqualification is a "drastic" measure that should be used only when "absolutely necessary"

  8. Slovensky v. Friedman

    142 Cal.App.4th 1518 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 127 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Affirming the trial court's summary judgment for defendant in a fiduciary duty and legal malpractice action where the plaintiff failed to establish damages

  9. Fair v. Bakhtiar

    195 Cal.App.4th 1135 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 103 times
    In Fair v. Bakhtiari (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1135, 1141, 125 Cal.Rptr.3d 765, an attorney violated the Rules of Professional Conduct by entering into business relationships with clients without complying with written disclosure and consent requirements.

  10. Great Lakes Construction, Inc. v. Burman

    186 Cal.App.4th 1347 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 82 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a moving party must have standing, that is, an invasion of a legally cognizable interest, to disqualify an attorney"

  11. Section 1331 - Federal question

    28 U.S.C. § 1331   Cited 97,351 times   134 Legal Analyses
    Finding that in order to invoke federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiff's claims must arise "under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States."

  12. Section 3729 - False claims

    31 U.S.C. § 3729   Cited 6,731 times   626 Legal Analyses
    Holding liable "any person" who knowingly causes false claims to be presented

  13. Section 3730 - Civil actions for false claims

    31 U.S.C. § 3730   Cited 5,359 times   430 Legal Analyses
    Granting the government primary responsibility for conducting suit

  14. Section 6068 - Duties of attorney

    Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6068   Cited 913 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Requiring attorney "[t]o maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself or herself to preserve the secrets, of his or her client"

  15. Section 3732 - False claims jurisdiction

    31 U.S.C. § 3732   Cited 278 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Granting jurisdiction to district courts "over any action brought under the laws of any State for the recovery of funds paid by a State or local government if the action arises from the same transaction or occurrence as an action brought under section 3730"

  16. Section 12651 - Prohibited acts; damages; civil penalties

    Cal. Gov. Code § 12651   Cited 185 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Providing that the CFCA does not require the Attorney General to establish elements of intent and reliance, which the Commissioner must under the UCL

  17. Section 68.081 - Florida False Claims Act; short title

    Fla. Stat. § 68.081   Cited 39 times   4 Legal Analyses

    Sections 68.081 - 68.092 may be cited as the "Florida False Claims Act." Fla. Stat. § 68.081 s.1, ch. 94-316; s.1, ch. 2007-236; s.1, ch. 2013-104. Amended by 2013 Fla. Laws, ch. 104, s 1, eff. 7/1/2013.

  18. Section 68.082 - False claims against the state; definitions; liability

    Fla. Stat. § 68.082   Cited 38 times   7 Legal Analyses

    (1) As used in this section, the term: (a) "Claim" means any request or demand, whether under a contract or otherwise, for money or property, regardless of whether the state has title to the money or property, that: 1. Is presented to any employee, officer, or agent of the state; or 2. Is made to a contractor, grantee, or other recipient if the state provides or has provided any portion of the money or property requested or demanded, or if the state will reimburse the contractor, grantee, or other

  19. Section 1201 - Liability for certain acts

    Del. Code tit. 6 § 1201   Cited 35 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Providing liability for one who "[c]onspires to commit a violation of any other provision of § 1201

  20. Section 12:5B - False claims; liability

    Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 12 § 5B   Cited 28 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Adopting amended FCA language, but effective after filing of this action

  21. Rule 8.520 - Briefs by parties and amici curiae; judicial notice

    Cal. R. 8.520   Cited 3,157 times

    (a)Parties' briefs; time to file (1) Within 30 days after the Supreme Court files the order of review, the petitioner must serve and file in that court either an opening brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (2) Within 30 days after the petitioner files its brief or the time to do so expires, the opposing party must serve and file either an answer brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (3) The petitioner may file a reply brief on the merits or

  22. Rule 8.252 - Judicial notice; findings and evidence on appeal

    Cal. R. 8.252   Cited 593 times

    (a)Judicial notice (1) To obtain judicial notice by a reviewing court under Evidence Code section 459, a party must serve and file a separate motion with a proposed order. (2) The motion must state: (A) Why the matter to be noticed is relevant to the appeal; (B) Whether the matter to be noticed was presented to the trial court and, if so, whether judicial notice was taken by that court; (C) If judicial notice of the matter was not taken by the trial court, why the matter is subject to judicial notice