Case # | Name | Category | Court | Judge | Published |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
C037254
|
Bronco Wine Co. v. Espinoza
State law regulating use of brand names on labels on wine bottles is void. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Aug. 4, 2004 | |
F043967
|
Bakersfield City School Dist. v. Superior Court (The Bakersfield Californian)
Disclosure of public employee's disciplinary record is dependent on reasonable conclusion that complaint is well-founded. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Jul. 30, 2004 | |
B163114
|
Fashion 21 v. Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles
Group's allegations that garment retailer underpaid immigrant workers are protected by anti-SLAPP law. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Jul. 29, 2004 | |
B163168
|
Garment Workers Center v. Superior Court (Fashion 21 Inc.)
Trial court abused its discretion in permitting discovery before first ruling on SLAPP motion. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Jul. 29, 2004 | |
C043997
|
Finley v. Saturn of Roseville
Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain plaintiffs' motion to compel review of first arbitrator's decision by second arbitrator. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Jul. 29, 2004 | |
B138149
|
Viner v. Sweet
Plaintiffs fail to show that 'but for' alleged transactional malpractice of their attorneys they would have obtained more favorable sales agreement. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Jul. 29, 2004 | |
B159305
|
Estate of Lowrie
Granddaughter has standing to sue uncle for elder abuse of grandmother. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Jul. 29, 2004 | |
A101034
|
People v. Calhoun
In jury trial pursuant to Sexually Violent Predator Act, defendant is entitled to only six peremptory challenges. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Jul. 29, 2004 | |
A102152
|
Plancarte v. Guardsmark
Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Jul. 29, 2004 | |
B169025
|
Omar v. Ralphs Grocery Co.
Trial court will decide whether grocery worker's wrongful termination claim must be arbitrated. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Jul. 29, 2004 | |
B163108
|
ECC Construction Inc. v. Oak Park Calabasas Homeowners Assn.
Title 11 U.S.C. Section 108 provides defendant extension of time necessary to make notice of appeal timely. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Jul. 29, 2004 | |
B157114
|
Newell v. State Farm General Insurance Co.
Plaintiffs may not bring class action suit against insurance company when requirements for class certification are not met. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Jul. 29, 2004 | |
S114171
|
State v. Superior Court (Bodde)
Failure to allege facts demonstrating compliance with claim presentation requirement subjects complaint to general demurrer. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Jul. 29, 2004 | |
D040186
|
Bernardo v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America
Trial court properly granted defendant's motion to strike complaint under anti-SLAPP statute because plaintiff failed to show probability of prevailing. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Jul. 28, 2004 | |
B158570
|
Garcia v. DIRECTV Inc.
Arbitrator, not court, must decide if arbitration agreement prohibits class-wide arbitration. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Jul. 28, 2004 | |
C041029
|
Scott v. Metabolife International Inc.
Plaintiff's claim against diet pill manufacturer was not a strategic lawsuit against public participation. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Jul. 28, 2004 | |
B149573
|
O'Hearn v. Hillcrest Gym and Fitness Center Inc.
Court erred in admitting evidence of settlement agreements plaintiff obtained in similar cases for purpose of establishing damages in present case. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Jul. 28, 2004 | |
H025840
|
Abramson v. Juniper Networks Inc.
Contract provision requiring employee to pay half of arbitration costs was unenforceable. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Jul. 28, 2004 | |
B167641
|
Fair Employment and Housing Commission v. Superior Court (Las Brisas Apartments)
Apartment owner challenging decision of Fair Employment and Housing Commission was subject to 30-day deadline. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Jul. 28, 2004 | |
D040279
|
Martinez v. Metabolife International Inc.
Because burden never shifted to plaintiffs to demonstrate probability they would prevail on claims, trial court correctly denied defendant's anti-SLAPP motion. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Jul. 28, 2004 | |
D042038
|
Barratt American Inc. v. City of San Diego
Proposition 218 does not repeal or otherwise invalidate Code of Civil Procedure Section 329.5. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Jul. 28, 2004 | |
D043096
|
Chatsky and Associates v. Superior Court (Bank of America Corp.)
One-year limitations period applies to claims by depositors against bank for payment of forged checks written on accounts. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Jul. 28, 2004 | |
C043096
|
London v. Dri-Honing Corp.
Motion for monetary discovery sanctions may be filed separately from motion to compel further discovery. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Jul. 28, 2004 | |
D043033
|
Haggerty v. Superior Court (Guindazola)
Trial court erred in ordering disclosure of internal affairs' report without first redacting portions reflecting investigating officer's analysis and conclusions. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Jul. 28, 2004 | |
A102603
|
Lopez v. Charles Schwab & Co. Inc.
Securities broker that rejected account application cannot enforce account's arbitration provision. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Jul. 28, 2004 | |
B160031
|
Hindin v. Rust
In malicious prosecution action, summary adjudication is not permitted when some, but not all claims are supported by probable cause. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Jul. 28, 2004 | |
D043323
|
Knowles v. Superior Court (Labo)
Statute of limitations period in wrongful death case was triggered when medical negligence was first suspected. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Jul. 28, 2004 | |
B165082
|
Action Apartment Assn. Inc. v. City of Santa Monica
City ordinance that prohibits landlords from harassing tenants in rent-controlled housing is pre-empted by state law. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Jul. 28, 2004 | |
D041904
|
Anastos v. Lee
Plaintiff who serves summons and complaint by publication isn't required to obtain separate court order to serve statement of damages by publication. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Jul. 28, 2004 | |
H026142
|
Holiday Matinee Inc. v. Rambus Inc.
Because plaintiff's claims arise under federal patent law, state court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Jul. 28, 2004 |