People v. Superior Court (Jayhill Corp.)

5 Citing briefs

  1. Nobles v. MBNA Corporation et al

    Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12

    Filed September 26, 2006

    Bus. & Prof. Code §17200 does not refer to the common law tort of fraud. Id.; see also People, 9 Cal. 3d at 288; Netscape Commc’ns Corp. v. Fed. Ins. Co., No. C 06- 00198 JW, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9569, at *14 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2006) (“Claims alleging violations of section 17200 do not require pleading with particularity.

  2. Low v. Trump University, LLC et al

    REPLY to Response to Motion re MOTION for Decertification of Class Action Reply Memorandum of Points & Authorities in Support of Trump University, LLC and Donald J. Trump's Motion for Decertification of Class Action

    Filed April 24, 2015

    In other words, those class members did not receive their entire rent back, just the amount above what they would have otherwise paid. The “seminal” case relied on by Plaintiffs, People v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 9 Cal. 3d 283 (1973), does not provide otherwise. Instead, in People, the court merely ruled that the court below erred in striking restitution from the prayer for relief in Plaintiff’s complaint.

  3. Low v. Trump University, LLC et al

    RESPONSE in Opposition re MOTION for Summary Judgment Trump University, LLC's Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Partial Summary Judgment, 375 MOTION for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Partial Summary Judgment

    Filed March 6, 2015

    Day, 63 Cal. App. 4th at 339. By way of illustration, the seminal California case, People v. Superior Court, 9 Cal. 3d 283, 286-88 (1973), held that purchasers defrauded by door-to-door encyclopedia salesmen with misleading “sales dialogues” could rescind their agreements and obtain full refunds. Indeed, where customers are “fraudulently induced to make payments” for services “they never received,” like in this case, restitution requires full refunds.

  4. Brothers v. Bank of America , N.A. et al

    RESPONSE

    Filed August 6, 2012

    The California Supreme Court has held that a court in equity “may exercise the full range of inherent powers in order to accomplish complete justice between the parties, restoring if necessary the status quo ante as nearly as may be achieved.” People v. Superior Court, 9 Cal.3d 283, 286 (1973). 1.

  5. Beverly King et al v. Citimortgage, Inc.

    MEMORANDUM in Opposition to MOTION to Dismiss Case 46

    Filed January 24, 2011

    Thus, “advertising” under the FAL includes virtually any statement — written or oral — made in connection with the sale of a product or service — and widespread dissemination is not necessary. See Chern v. Bank of Am., 15 Cal. 3d 866, 870, 876 (1976); People v. Super. Ct., 9 Cal. 3d 283, 286, 289 (1973) (statements can be oral); Ford Dealers Ass’n v. Dep’t of Motor Vehicles, 32 Cal. 3d 347 (1982) (one- on-one solicitations fall within the purview of section 17500). While Citi attempts to limit the scope of its “advertising” violations to widely disseminated conventional advertisements, the FAL encompasses all of the following: Citi’s mass marketing campaign (¶¶ 61-64, 221-23), misrepresentations in the loan modification agreements (Exs.