11 Cited authorities

  1. Transamerica Mortgage Advisors, Inc. v. Lewis

    444 U.S. 11 (1979)   Cited 1,256 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Investment Advisors Act implies a limited remedy to void an investment advisors contract while recognizing that the Act was "intended to benefit the clients of investment advisees"
  2. Astra USA, Inc. v. Santa Clara County

    563 U.S. 110 (2011)   Cited 163 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a contract claim based on the violation of a policy that merely incorporated statutory language was "in essence a suit to enforce the statute itself," and therefore unenforceable in a private action
  3. Arias v. Superior Court (Angelo Dairy)

    46 Cal.4th 969 (Cal. 2009)   Cited 428 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that proof of a Labor Code violation is a prerequisite to recovery of PAGA penalties
  4. Martinez v. Combs

    49 Cal.4th 35 (Cal. 2010)   Cited 407 times   44 Legal Analyses
    Holding that California's wage and hour laws do not impose liability on "individual corporate agents acting within the scope of their agency"
  5. Grochowski v. Phx. Constr.

    318 F.3d 80 (2d Cir. 2003)   Cited 485 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that when a government contract confirms a statutory obligation, "a third-party private contract action [to enforce that obligation] would be inconsistent with ... the legislative scheme ... to the same extent as would a cause of action directly under the statute"
  6. Stencel Aero Engineering Corp. v. U.S.

    431 U.S. 666 (1977)   Cited 302 times
    Holding that Feres doctrine applies in action against United States raising products liability claims
  7. Futrell v. Payday California, Inc.

    190 Cal.App.4th 1419 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 80 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a payroll company, which handled "ministerial tasks," did not exercise control over wages, hours, or working conditions
  8. Robles v. Agreserves, Inc.

    158 F. Supp. 3d 952 (E.D. Cal. 2016)   Cited 41 times
    Finding that plaintiff's allegations that a Mexican supervisor called him a "stupid Mexican" almost every day and asserting that he was "above all Mexicans" was not sufficiently severe or pervasive enough to interfere with a "a reasonable employee's work performance" and seriously affect the "psychological well-being of an reasonable employee
  9. Rule 8.1115 - Citation of opinions

    Cal. R. 8.1115   Cited 75,223 times

    (a) Unpublished opinion Except as provided in (b), an opinion of a California Court of Appeal or superior court appellate division that is not certified for publication or ordered published must not be cited or relied on by a court or a party in any other action. (b)Exceptions An unpublished opinion may be cited or relied on: (1) When the opinion is relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or (2) When the opinion is relevant to a criminal or disciplinary

  10. Rule 8.204 - Contents and format of briefs

    Cal. R. 8.204   Cited 3,611 times

    (a) Contents (1) Each brief must: (A) Begin with a table of contents and a table of authorities separately listing cases, constitutions, statutes, court rules, and other authorities cited; (B) State each point under a separate heading or subheading summarizing the point, and support each point by argument and, if possible, by citation of authority; and (C) Support any reference to a matter in the record by a citation to the volume and page number of the record where the matter appears. If any part

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

    Cal. R. 8.520   Cited 2,149 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