35 Cited authorities

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes
564 U.S. 338 (2011) Cited 6,629 times 505 Legal Analyses
Holding in Rule 23 context that “[w]ithout some glue holding the alleged reasons for all those decisions together, it will be impossible to say that examination of all the class members' claims for relief will produce a common answer”
Ebay Inc. v. Mercexchange, L. L. C.
547 U.S. 388 (2006) Cited 3,791 times 130 Legal Analyses
Holding that traditional four-factor test applies to injunctions against patent infringement
Stormans v. Selecky
586 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 2009) Cited 1,436 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a corporation has standing to assert the free exercise rights of its owners
Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp.
29 Cal.4th 1134 (Cal. 2003) Cited 1,654 times 16 Legal Analyses
Holding that plaintiff cannot recover damages under Cal. Bus. Prof. Code § 17200 unless plaintiff has "an ownership interest in the money it seeks to recover"
In re Tobacco II Cases
46 Cal.4th 298 (Cal. 2009) Cited 1,203 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
TrafficSchool.com, Inc. v. Edriver Inc.
653 F.3d 820 (9th Cir. 2011) Cited 724 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that district court committed no error in holding that the defendants violated the Lanham Act but declining to make an award of profits, where the plaintiffs "didn't produce any proof of past injury or causation"
Ramirez v. City of Buena Park
560 F.3d 1012 (9th Cir. 2009) Cited 322 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that "innocent explanations for [a suspect's] odd behavior cannot eliminate the suspicious facts" and that "law enforcement officers do not have to rule out the possibility of innocent behavior"
Colgan v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc.
135 Cal.App.4th 663 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) Cited 318 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that federal cases requiring “'extrinsic evidence,' such as expert testimony or consumer surveys...do not accurately reflect California law.”
American Title Ins. Co. v. Lacelaw Corp.
861 F.2d 224 (9th Cir. 1988) Cited 465 times
Holding that "statements of fact contained in a brief may be considered admissions of the party in the discretion of the district court"
In re Vioxx Class Cases
180 Cal.App.4th 116 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) Cited 185 times 7 Legal Analyses
Explaining that restitution is equal to the difference between what the plaintiff paid and the value she received in return
Rule 65 - Injunctions and Restraining Orders
Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 Cited 22,389 times 87 Legal Analyses
Recognizing court's ability to enter emergency order with less than full adversary hearing and even, in appropriate circumstances, without notice
Section 3294 - When damages recoverable for sake of example and by way of punishment; employer liability for acts of employee; death from homicide
Cal. Civ. Code § 3294 Cited 2,788 times 9 Legal Analyses
Stating plaintiff may recover punitive damages "in addition to the actual damages"
Section 17203 - Injunctive relief
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17203 Cited 984 times 5 Legal Analyses
Requiring that an individual plead that she lost "money or property" because of the alleged deceptive conduct

Sanchez et al v. Wells Fargo & Company et al

35 Cited authorities

Holding in Rule 23 context that “[w]ithout some glue holding the alleged reasons for all those decisions together, it will be impossible to say that examination of all the class members' claims for relief will produce a common answer”

Holding that traditional four-factor test applies to injunctions against patent infringement

Holding that a corporation has standing to assert the free exercise rights of its owners

Holding that plaintiff cannot recover damages under Cal. Bus. Prof. Code § 17200 unless plaintiff has "an ownership interest in the money it seeks to recover"

Holding class representatives had standing to challenge common marketing of cigarettes despite differences in the advertisements or statements on which class members relied

Holding that district court committed no error in holding that the defendants violated the Lanham Act but declining to make an award of profits, where the plaintiffs "didn't produce any proof of past injury or causation"

Holding that "innocent explanations for [a suspect's] odd behavior cannot eliminate the suspicious facts" and that "law enforcement officers do not have to rule out the possibility of innocent behavior"

Holding that federal cases requiring “'extrinsic evidence,' such as expert testimony or consumer surveys...do not accurately reflect California law.”

Holding that "statements of fact contained in a brief may be considered admissions of the party in the discretion of the district court"

Explaining that restitution is equal to the difference between what the plaintiff paid and the value she received in return

Recognizing court's ability to enter emergency order with less than full adversary hearing and even, in appropriate circumstances, without notice

Stating plaintiff may recover punitive damages "in addition to the actual damages"

Requiring that an individual plead that she lost "money or property" because of the alleged deceptive conduct