21 Cited authorities

Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (2009) Cited 254,033 times 279 Legal Analyses
Holding that a claim is plausible where a plaintiff's allegations enable the court to draw a "reasonable inference" the defendant is liable
Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins
304 U.S. 64 (1938) Cited 20,433 times 18 Legal Analyses
Holding that state law governs substantive issues and federal law governs procedural issues
Guaranty Trust Co. v. York
326 U.S. 99 (1945) Cited 2,323 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that federal courts sitting in diversity should apply state law that determines the outcome of the case
Epstein v. Washington Energy Co.
83 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 1996) Cited 698 times 2 Legal Analyses
Finding no duty to predict action of public utility commission
McBride v. Boughton
123 Cal.App.4th 379 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) Cited 481 times
Holding that common count will "stand or fall" with cause of action seeking the same recovery
Paracor Finance, Inc. v. Gen. El. Cap. Corp.
79 F.3d 878 (9th Cir. 1996) Cited 564 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding a § 20 "controlling person liability" claim requires a showing that a primary violation was committed
Jablon v. Dean Witter Co.
614 F.2d 677 (9th Cir. 1980) Cited 834 times
Holding complaint may be dismissed on statute of limitations grounds where allegations therein, even when read with required liberality, would not permit plaintiff to prove statute was tolled
Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co.
65 Cal.App.4th 1279 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) Cited 392 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that, given the circumstances, a pro rata allocation for equitable contribution was appropriate
Boon Rawd Trading Intern. Co., Ltd. v. Paleewong Trading Co., Inc.
688 F. Supp. 2d 940 (N.D. Cal. 2010) Cited 84 times
Concluding that exclusive importation right "is an intangible contractual right protected under contract law, not tort law."
Cochran v. Cochran
56 Cal.App.4th 1115 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) Cited 97 times
In Cochran v. Cochran (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1115 (Cochran I), we held that the statute of limitations for breach of a Marvin agreement did not begin to run until the defendant failed to perform as the agreement required.
Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 Cited 347,250 times 923 Legal Analyses
Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 Cited 90,919 times 91 Legal Analyses
Finding that, per N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1024, New York law provides a more forgiving principle for relation back in the context of naming John Doe defendants described with particularity in the complaint
Section 339 - Contract, obligation not founded on written instrument; against sheriff or coroner for doing official act; rescission of contract not in writing
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 339 Cited 1,515 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a plaintiff must initiate within two years "[a]n action upon a contract, obligation or liability not founded upon an instrument of writing"

St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company v. Crawford And Company

21 Cited authorities

Holding that a claim is plausible where a plaintiff's allegations enable the court to draw a "reasonable inference" the defendant is liable

Holding that state law governs substantive issues and federal law governs procedural issues

Holding that federal courts sitting in diversity should apply state law that determines the outcome of the case

Finding no duty to predict action of public utility commission

Holding that common count will "stand or fall" with cause of action seeking the same recovery

Holding a § 20 "controlling person liability" claim requires a showing that a primary violation was committed

Holding complaint may be dismissed on statute of limitations grounds where allegations therein, even when read with required liberality, would not permit plaintiff to prove statute was tolled

Holding that, given the circumstances, a pro rata allocation for equitable contribution was appropriate

Concluding that exclusive importation right "is an intangible contractual right protected under contract law, not tort law."

In Cochran v. Cochran (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1115 (Cochran I), we held that the statute of limitations for breach of a Marvin agreement did not begin to run until the defendant failed to perform as the agreement required.

Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

Finding that, per N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1024, New York law provides a more forgiving principle for relation back in the context of naming John Doe defendants described with particularity in the complaint

Holding that a plaintiff must initiate within two years "[a]n action upon a contract, obligation or liability not founded upon an instrument of writing"