§Why CasetextPricing

Zamora et al v. Lyft, Inc.

RESPONSE

55 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 266,796 times   281 Legal Analyses
    Holding court need not credit "mere conclusory statements" in complaint

  2. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

    550 U.S. 544 (2007)   Cited 279,848 times   369 Legal Analyses
    Holding that allegations of conduct that are merely consistent with wrongdoing do not state a claim unless "placed in a context that raises a suggestion of" such wrongdoing

  3. Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co.

    20 Cal.4th 163 (Cal. 1999)   Cited 2,481 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Holding that for an act to be "unfair," it must "threaten" a violation of law or "violate the policy or spirit of one of those laws because its effects are comparable to or the same as a violation of the law"

  4. Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc.

    244 F.3d 708 (9th Cir. 2001)   Cited 1,985 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that defendant was not estopped from raising untimely res judicata defense

  5. Cousins v. Lockyer

    568 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2009)   Cited 1,418 times
    Holding that "state departmental regulations do not establish a federal constitutional violation."

  6. Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp.

    29 Cal.4th 1134 (Cal. 2003)   Cited 1,704 times   17 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"

  7. Sonoma Cnty. Ass'n of Retired Emps. v. Sonoma Cnty.

    708 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 2013)   Cited 637 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that leave to amend should be permitted absent "strong evidence" of delay, bad faith, repeated failures to cure deficiencies, prejudice, or futility

  8. Lozano v. Wireless Servs.

    504 F.3d 718 (9th Cir. 2007)   Cited 611 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the law on predominance requires the district court to consider variations in state law when a class action involves multiple jurisdictions"

  9. Della Penna v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.

    11 Cal.4th 376 (Cal. 1995)   Cited 530 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the tort of intentional or negligence interference with prospective economic advantage requires that a defendant's interference be wrongful "by some measure beyond the fact of the interference itself

  10. Klamath Water Users Pro. Ass'n. v. Patterson

    204 F.3d 1206 (9th Cir. 1999)   Cited 386 times
    Holding that federal law controls the interpretation of a contract entered into pursuant to federal law when the United States is a party

  11. Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 8   Cited 163,896 times   197 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

  12. Section 17200 - Unfair competition defined

    Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200   Cited 18,400 times   316 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting unlawful business practices

  13. Section 1174 - Duties of employers

    Cal. Lab. Code § 1174   Cited 394 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Requiring employers to keep payroll records of hours worked daily by employees

  14. Section 351 - Property of employee

    Cal. Lab. Code § 351   Cited 108 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Covering gratuities

  15. Section 2699.5 - Applicability of provisions

    Cal. Lab. Code § 2699.5   Cited 76 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Providing that the requirements of section 2699.3 apply to an alleged violation of 1174(d)

  16. Section 353 - Records

    Cal. Lab. Code § 353   Cited 5 times

    Every employer shall keep accurate records of all gratuities received by him, whether received directly from the employee or indirectly by means of deductions from the wages of the employee or otherwise. Such records shall be open to inspection at all reasonable hours by the department. Ca. Lab. Code § 353 Enacted by Stats. 1937, Ch. 90.