Third Story Music, Inc. v. Waits

9 Citing briefs

  1. Zepeda v. Paypal, Inc.

    RESPONSE in Support re MOTION to Dismiss For Failure to State a Claim and For Failure to Plead Fraud with Particularity

    Filed December 15, 2010

    Accordingly, “an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing cannot contradict the express terms of a contract.” Storek & Storek, Inc. v. Citicorp Real Estate, Inc., 100 Cal. App. 4th 44, 55, 64, 122 Cal. Rptr. 2d 267 (2002) (citing Carma Developers, Inc. v. Marathon Dev. California, Inc., 2 Cal. 4th 342, 374, 6 Cal. Rptr. 2d 467 (1992)); see also Third Story Music, Inc. v. Waits, 41 Cal. App. 4th 798, 808-09, Case 4:10-cv-02500-SBA Document 41 Filed 12/15/10 Page 13 of 24 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 -7- DEFENDANT’S REPLY I/S/O MOTION TO DISMISS CASE NO. 10-CV-02500 JF LA 51338198 S T R O O C K & S T R O O C K & L A V A N L L P 20 29 C en tu ry P ar k E as t Lo s A ng el es , C al ifo rn ia 9 00 67 -3 08 6 48 Cal. Rptr. 2d 747 (1995).

  2. Rajesh Varma, et al v. Bank of America,N.A., et al

    NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case

    Filed February 13, 2017

    A, B.), and cannot serve as the factual predicate for a claim under the implied covenant. See Third Story Music v. Waits, 41 Cal. App. 4th 798 (1996) (“Courts are not at liberty to imply a covenant directly at odds with a contract’s express grant of discretionary power except in those relatively rare instances when reading the provision literally would, contrary to the parties’ clear intention, result in an unenforceable, illusory agreement.”).

  3. Rajesh Varma, et al v. Bank of America,N.A., et al

    NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case

    Filed January 4, 2017

    A, B.), and cannot serve as the factual predicate for a claim under the implied covenant. See Third Story Music v. Waits, 41 Cal. App. 4th 798 (1996) (“Courts are not at liberty to imply a covenant directly at odds with a contract’s express grant of discretionary power except in those relatively rare instances when reading the provision literally would, contrary to the parties’ clear intention, result in an unenforceable, illusory agreement.”).

  4. Ouapou-Lena v. Greenfield Care Center of Fairfield et al

    MOTION for SUMMARY JUDGMENT

    Filed December 13, 2016

    There is no merit to Plaintiff’s Third Cause of Action for Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing because “there can be no implied covenant where the subject is completely covered by the contract.” (Third Story Music, Inc. v. Waits (1995) 41 Cal. App. 4th 798, 804). Further, the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing cannot be used to limit an employer’s right to terminate an at-will employee “[b]ecause the implied covenant protects only the parties’ right to receive the benefit of their agreement, and, in an at-will relationship there is no agreement [to limit the employer’s right to terminate the employee], the implied covenant standing alone cannot be read to impose such a duty.”

  5. United States America v. County of Los Angeles et al

    OPPOSITION TO re: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Munger, Tolles & Olson, LLP 44

    Filed October 26, 2015

    -17- 15-cv-05903 OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISQUALIFY Case 2:15-cv-05903-DDP-JEM Document 57 Filed 10/26/15 Page 21 of 23 Page ID #:1404 1 !d. at 57 (quoting Third Story Music, Inc. v. Waits, 41 Cal. App. 4th 798, 808 2 (1995)). The County misleadingly quotes only from the first sentence ofthis 3 passage.

  6. Total Recall Technologies v. Palmer Luckey, et al

    MOTION to Dismiss

    Filed August 5, 2015

    Openwave Sys. v. Myriad Fr. S.A.S., No. C 10-2805 WHA, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69797, at *16–17 (N.D. Cal. June 29, 2011) (Alsup, J.) (implied covenant “does not govern” absent “grant of [contractual] discretion”); see also Third Story Music, Inc. v. Waits, 41 Cal. App. 4th 798, 806–08 (1995) (collecting cases). Here, TRT does not allege that the Seidl/Luckey Contract vested Luckey with any discretion, much less that he exercised that discretion in bad faith. Accordingly, the implied covenant claim fails for this additional reason. Case3:15-cv-02281-WHA

  7. Svenson v. Google, Inc. et al

    MOTION to Dismiss DEFENDANTS GOOGLE INC. AND GOOGLE PAYMENT CORPORATION'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT

    Filed October 30, 2013

    A136401, 2013 WL 3853199, at *6 (Cal. Ct. App. July 24, 2013) (citing Third Story Music, Inc. v. Waits, 41 Cal. App. 4th 798, 804 (1995)). A claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith that merely realleges and repeats the same allegations that support a claim for breach of contract is properly dismissed as superfluous.

  8. Rosado v. eBay Inc.

    MOTION to Dismiss Defendant eBay Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint

    Filed October 22, 2012

    Gen. Elec. Capital Corp., 96 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 1996) ................................................................................................... 24 SBA Commc’ns, Inc. v. Zoning Comm’n of Town of Brookfield, 96 F. Supp. 2d 139 (D. Conn. 2000) ....................................................................................... 24 Spiegler v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 552 F. Supp. 2d 1036 (C.D. Cal. 2008) ............................................................................ 16, 19 Swanson v. U.S. Forest Serv., 87 F.3d 339 (9th Cir. 1996) ..................................................................................................... 11 Swanson v. USProtect Corp., No. C 05-602, 2007 WL 1394485 (N.D. Cal. May 10, 2007) ................................................ 24 Thinket Ink Info. Res., Inc. v. Sun Microsystems, Inc., 368 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2004) ................................................................................................. 11 Third Story Music, Inc. v. Waits, 41 Cal. App. 4th 798 (1995) ................................................................................................... 22 Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA, 317 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2003) ................................................................................................. 12 Case 5:12-cv-04005-EJD Document 20 Filed 10/22/12 Page 4 of 30 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 Table of Authorities (continued) Page 1286751 /SF iv. Wolf v. Walt Disney Pictures & Television, 162 Cal. App. 4th 1107 (2008) ............................................................................................... 22 Woods v. Google, Inc., 5:11-cv-01263, --- F. Supp. 2d ---, 2012 WL 3673319 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2012) .................... ............................................................................................................................... 16, 21, 22, 23 OTHER AUTHORITIES Federal Rule of Civil Procedur

  9. Law v. Harvey et al

    Memorandum in Opposition re First MOTION for Leave to File First Amended Complaint Joinder in Co-Dfts Opposition 78

    Filed November 2, 2007

    Carma Developers (Cal.), Inc. v. Marathon Development California, Inc., 2 Cal.4th 342, 374 (1992); Third Story Music, Inc. v. Waits, 41 Cal.App.4th 798, 802 (1995); 1 Witkin, Summary of California Law (Contracts), § 743, at 448 (9th ed. 2003 Supp.).