unsupported claim in California

2024For example, in Durell, the plaintiff alleged that a hospital overcharged uninsured patients and used improper collection tactics. ( Durell, supra, 183 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1356–1357.) Although he alleged these practices violated public policy, he failed to state a claim for unfairness under the UCL because he did not allege these practices were tethered to antitrust law or any underlying constitutional, statutory or regulatory provision.

2024For example, in Durell, the plaintiff alleged that a hospital overcharged uninsured patients and used improper collection tactics. ( Durell, supra, 183 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1356–1357.) Although he alleged these practices violated public policy, he failed to state a claim for unfairness under the UCL because he did not allege these practices were tethered to antitrust law or any underlying constitutional, statutory or regulatory provision.

2022We do not address the unsupported claim. ( Badie, supra, 67 Cal.App.4th at pp. 784-785; Maral, supra, 221 Cal.App.4th at p. 984 ; Dills, supra, 28 Cal.App.4th at p. 890, fn. 1 .) 39 DISPOSITION The judgment denying the petition for writ of mandate by the Association is reversed with regard to the EIR’s threshold of significance for noise impacts and the EIR’s discussion of ambient noise levels and the combined effect of all project-generated noise occurring simultaneously.

2021(Nwosu, supra, 122 Cal.App.4th at p. 1245, fn. 14 ; Badie, supra, 67 Cal.App.4th at pp. 784-785.) 15 IV The Department Appellants also challenge the trial court’s rulings regarding mitigation measures BIO-CHEM-2 and WQ-CUM-1.

2015(People v. Guiton, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 1130 .) “[T]he appellate court should affirm the judgment unless a review of the entire record affirmatively demonstrates a reasonable probability that the jury in fact found the defendant guilty solely on the unsupported theory.” (Ibid.) We see no such probability here.

2014(People v. Guiton (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1116, 1129-1130 .) We “affirm the judgment unless a review of the entire record affirmatively demonstrates a reasonable probability that the jury in fact found the defendant guilty solely on [an unsupported instruction].” (Ibid.) Dean argues that the jury was likely misled to believe he was liable under section 12022.53 for merely discharging his own gun into the air, thereby lowering the prosecution’s burden of proof.

2026An unsupported claim that a delegation clause creates a conflict of interest for an arbitrator “is nothing more than an expression of a judicial hostility to arbitration, based on the assumption that a paid decision maker cannot be unbiased.” (Malone, supra, 226 Cal.App.4th at p. 1569 .) Further, Mather submitted no evidence showing the delegation clause was outside her reasonable expectations.

2025(See, e.g., Doe v. Frank, supra, 951 F.2d at p. 324 ; Company Doe v. Public Citizen (4th Cir. 2014) 749 F.3d 246, 270 [“An unsupported claim of reputational harm falls short of a compelling interest sufficient to overcome the strong First Amendment presumptive right of public access.”].) C.

2025(See 1 Cal.5th at p. 952 [it is error for a reviewing court to treat “the new project inquiry as a question for the court’s independent determination under a de novo standard”].) We cannot invalidate the County’s approval of the Cajalco Square development based on the Association’s unsupported claim that it is a “new project.” (See also id. at p. 944 [“When an agency proposes changes to a previously approved project, CEQA does not authorize courts to invalidate the agency’s action based solely on their own abstract evaluation of whether 6 During oral argument the Association relied on Save Our

2024(Benetatos, supra, 235 Cal.App.4th at p. 1282 .) Benetatos relied on Lew v. Superior Court (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 866 , 870–875 (Lew) for the rule that a “property owner who fails to take reasonable actions to prevent criminal activity on the owner’s property may be subject to nuisance 18 liability if that criminal activity harms the surrounding community.” ( Benetatos, supra, 235 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1282– 1283.) Lew deserves special attention because its facts, in some respects, resemble this case and because our Supreme Court cited Lew with favor.

2024But there was substantial evidence that [these owners] failed to take steps to ameliorate the situation.” (Benetatos, supra, 235 Cal.App.4th at p. 1284 , quotation marks and citation omitted.) Additionally, the Benetatos opinion held the trial court properly rejected the restaurant owners’ unsupported claim the cost of the imposed operating conditions would force the restaurant out of business.

2024(Benetatos, supra, 235 Cal.App.4th at p. 1282 .) Benetatos relied on Lew v. Superior Court (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 866 , 870–875 (Lew) for the rule that a “property owner who fails to take reasonable actions to prevent criminal activity on the owner’s property may be subject to nuisance 18 liability if that criminal activity harms the surrounding community.” ( Benetatos, supra, 235 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1282– 1283.) Lew deserves special attention because its facts, in some respects, resemble this case and because our Supreme Court cited Lew with favor.

2023We will not consider this undeveloped argument. “[W]e may disregard conclusory arguments that are not supported by pertinent legal authority or fail to disclose the reasoning by which the appellant reached the conclusions he wants us to adopt.” (City of Santa Maria v. Adam (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 266, 287 .) 6 person is qualified to testify as an expert if he has special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education sufficient to qualify him as an expert on the subject to which his testimony relates.

2022We do not address the unsupported claim. ( Badie, supra, 67 Cal.App.4th at pp. 784-785; Maral, supra, 221 Cal.App.4th at p. 984 ; Dills, supra, 28 Cal.App.4th at p. 890, fn. 1 .) 39 DISPOSITION The judgment denying the petition for writ of mandate by the Association is reversed with regard to the EIR’s threshold of significance for noise impacts and the EIR’s discussion of ambient noise levels and the combined effect of all project-generated noise occurring simultaneously.

2022We do not address the unsupported claim. ( Badie, supra, 67 Cal.App.4th at pp. 784-785; Maral, supra, 221 Cal.App.4th at p. 984 ; Dills, supra, 28 Cal.App.4th at p. 890, fn. 1 .) 39 DISPOSITION The judgment denying the petition for writ of mandate by the Association is reversed with regard to the EIR’s threshold of significance for noise impacts and the EIR’s discussion of ambient noise levels and the combined effect of all project-generated noise occurring simultaneously.

2022(Tanguilig v. Valdez (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 514, 520 ; Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246-1247 .) Moreover, the GCP letter does not support Valson’s claim for relief.

2016They are ‘larger, more general reasons for approving the project, such as the need to create new jobs, provide housing, generate taxes, and the like.’” (Woodward Park Homeowners, supra, 150 Cal.App.4th at p. 717 .) Nevertheless, it is not true “that an agency’s unsupported claim that the project will confer benefits is sufficient.” The considerations named in the statement must be supported by substantial evidence in the EIR or elsewhere in the record.

2016(Pac Anchor, supra, 59 Cal.4th at p. 777 .) Because appellants’ briefs contain no argument or authority establishing the beneficiary of a loan may be liable for the fraud of a loan servicer, we consider the argument to be abandoned.

2013(See fn. 18, post.) 17 Haas is also distinguishable for the same two reasons pointed out by Broden v. Marin Humane Society (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1212, 1220 , footnote 7 [ 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 235 ], namely, (1) Haas raised the issue at the beginning of the administrative hearing, and (2) Haas presented an adequate record demonstrating the tainted relationship between the hearing officer and the county. 18 In a footnote bereft of authority or analysis, Thornbrough accuses the hearing officer of actual bias because of rulings he made adverse to Thornbrough’s position.

2013(See fn. 18, post.) 17 Haas is also distinguishable for the same two reasons pointed out by Broden v. Marin Humane Society (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1212, 1220 , footnote 7 [ 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 235 ], namely, (1) Haas raised the issue at the beginning of the administrative hearing, and (2) Haas presented an adequate record demonstrating the tainted relationship between the hearing officer and the county. 18 In a footnote bereft of authority or analysis, Thornbrough accuses the hearing officer of actual bias because of rulings he made adverse to Thornbrough’s position.

2007The asserted overriding considerations must be supported by substantial evidence in the final EIR or somewhere in the record. ( Sierra Club v. Contra Costa County (1992) 10 *128 Cal.App.4th 1212, 1223, 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 182 ; Guidelines, § 15093, subd. (b).) 2.

2000(North Coast Business Park v. Nielsen Construction Co. (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 22 , 28-32 *456 [ 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 104 ]; Waisbren v. Peppercorn Productions, Inc. (1995) 41 Cal.App.4th 246, 263 [ 48 Cal.Rptr.2d 437 ].) Accordingly, the one-year period of limitation under the contract of insurance commenced on January 17, 1994. c.

2000(North Coast Business Park v. Nielsen Construction Co. (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 22 , 28-32 *456 [ 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 104 ]; Waisbren v. Peppercorn Productions, Inc. (1995) 41 Cal.App.4th 246, 263 [ 48 Cal.Rptr.2d 437 ].) Accordingly, the one-year period of limitation under the contract of insurance commenced on January 17, 1994. c.

1995(See Zuckerman, supra, 189 Cal.App.3d at p. 1135 .) “Under the often-enunciated rule, which is so often forgotten in the enthusiasm of advocacy, we look to the evidence accepted by the trial court.” (Findleton v. Taylor (1962) 208 Cal.App.2d 651, 652 [ 25 Cal.Rptr. 439 ].) We disregard the Attorney General’s editorial comments about the facts, such as the repeated reference to the child as “young Johnny,” the unsupported claim the mother was badgered in the trial court, and the assumption the defendant must be the father because he opposed DNA testing of his person.