Brawthen v. H R Block, Inc.

2 Citing briefs

  1. Low v. Trump University, LLC et al

    RESPONSE in Opposition re MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint Under Rules 12

    Filed August 30, 2010

    ................................................................................................17 Barker v. Riverside Cnty. Office of Educ., 584 F.3d 821 (9th Cir. 2009) .....................................................................................................8 Batwin v. Occam Networks, Inc., No. CV 07-2750 CAS (SHx), 2008 WL 2676364 (C.D. Cal. July 1, 2008) .............................................................................................................8 Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007).....................................................8, 9 Blake v. Career Educ. Corp., No. 4:08cv00821 ERW, 2009 WL 2567011 (E.D. Mo. Aug. 18, 2009) ..................................................................................................11, 12 Braden v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 588 F.3d 585 (8th Cir. 2009) .....................................................................................................9 Brawthen v. H&R Block, Inc., 28 Cal. App. 3d 131 (1972) .....................................................................................................15 Broberg v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 171 Cal. App. 4th 912 (2009) ............................................................................................21, 22 Chevlin v. Los Angeles Cmty. College Dist., 212 Cal. App. 3d 382 (1989) ...................................................................................................10 Case 3:10-cv-00940-GPC-WVG Document 25 Filed 08/30/10 Page 4 of 35 Page 577176_1 - iv - 10-cv-00940-IEG(WVG) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Cohen v. DIRECTV, Inc., 178 Cal. App. 4th 966 (2009) ..................................................................................................24 Consumers Union of U.S., Inc. v. Alta-Dena Certified Dairy, 4 Cal. App. 4th 963 (1992) ............................................................................

  2. Berger et al v. Seyfarth Shaw, LLP et al

    Reply to Opposition Defendant Douglas B. Allen dba Burnett, Burnett & Allens Points and Authorities in Reply to Opposition to Dismiss under Rule 12 and, Opposition to Plaintiffs Cross-Motion for Summary Adjudication Against Defendant Allen Regarding Statute of Limitations, Motion Pursuant to Rule 56

    Filed November 29, 2007

    6 [a][2]). Plaintiffs and defendants have an integrated agreement that cannot be contradicted as a matter of law by extrinsic evidence (Code of Civil Procedure section 1856; Brawthen v. H & R Block, Inc. (1972) 28 C. A. 3d 131). That integrated agreement indicates the representation ends at the entry of judgment.