party making claim in California

2016The statute could reasonably accommodate either meaning proposed by the parties. 4 Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.285 states, in part: “(a) If electronically stored information produced in discovery is subject to a claim of privilege or of protection as attorney work product, the party making the claim may notify any party that received the information of the claim and the basis for the claim. [¶] (b) After being notified of a claim of privilege or of protection under subdivision (a), a party that received the information shall immediately sequester the information and either return the

2015The statute could reasonably accommodate either meaning proposed by the parties. 4 Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.285 states, in part: “(a) If electronically stored information produced in discovery is subject to a claim of privilege or of protection as attorney work product, the party making the claim may notify any party that received the information of the claim and the basis for the claim. [¶] (b) After being notified of a claim of privilege or of protection under subdivision (a), a party that received the information shall immediately sequester the information and either return the

2016(Cates v. Chiang (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 791, 811 .) But defendants presented no evidence on this issue at the hearing.

2015Massey Coal Co. (2009) 556 U.S. 868 [ 173 L.Ed.2d 1208 , 129 S.Ct. 2252 ] [establishing the standard for a due process claim that a judge was biased after the party making the claim had moved to disqualify the judge].) But a defendant who never objected to the judge may not do so.

2015Massey Coal Co. (2009) 556 U.S. 868 [ 173 L.Ed.2d 1208 , 129 S.Ct. 2252 ] [establishing the standard for a due process claim that a judge was biased after the party making the claim had moved to disqualify the judge].) But a defendant who never objected to the judge may not do so.

2015(Ibid.) “It would be futile to set aside a foreclosure sale on the technical ground that notice was improper, if the party making the challenge did not first make full tender and thereby establish his ability to purchase the property.” (United States Cold Storage, supra, 165 Cal.App.3d at p. 1225 .) “A cause of action ‘implicitly integrated’ with the irregular sale fails unless the trustor can allege and establish a valid tender.” (Arnolds Management, supra, 158 Cal.App.3d at p. 579 .) Courts have recognized four exceptions to the tender rule: “First, if the borrower’s action attacks the valid

2015It is sufficient if the claimant belongs to a class of persons for whose benefit it was made. [Citation.] A third party may qualify as a contract beneficiary where the contracting parties must have intended to benefit that individual, an intent which must appear in the terms of the agreement. [Citation.]’” (Brinton v. Bankers Pension Services, Inc. (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 550, 558 ; see Performance Plastering v. Richmond American Homes of California, Inc. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 659, 667 (Performance Plastering); General Motors, supra, 12 Cal.App.4th at p. 444 .) In Performance Plastering, the Co

2015It is sufficient if the claimant belongs to a class of persons for whose benefit it was made. [Citation.] A third party may qualify as a contract beneficiary where the contracting parties must have intended to benefit that individual, an intent which must appear in the terms of the agreement. [Citation.]’” (Brinton v. Bankers Pension Services, Inc. (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 550, 558 ; see Performance Plastering v. Richmond American Homes of California, Inc. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 659, 667 (Performance Plastering); General Motors, supra, 12 Cal.App.4th at p. 444 .) In Performance Plastering, the Co

2013Relying on Onofrio v. Rice (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 413, 424 , for the proposition that tender “ ‘may not be required where it would be inequitable to do so,’ ” appellant suggests that tender was not required in this case.

2009(Id. at pp. 69-70.) The Anderson court observed at the outset that the first instruction “was clearly erroneous.” (People v. Anderson, supra, 44 Cal. at p. 68 .) It further explained: “On the one hand the jury is told, in substance, that the danger must have been real, and that the right of self-defense cannot be exercised in any case or to any degree not necessary, and on the other hand, that it is sufficient if the danger was apparent, though it afterward turned out that in fact there was no actual danger and no necessity for the killing.

1995In Burtscher v. Burtscher (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 720, 725-726 , the court recently analyzed this statutory requirement: "To start, we reject defendants' contention that establishing a `reasonable probability' under the statute goes beyond a prima facie case . . . .

1995(People v. Turner (1994) 8 Cal.4th 137, 195 ; Mann v. Macy (1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 666, 674 .) In the civil law context, it is to be observed that a cause of action may not be filed for civil conspiracy under the provisions of Civil Code section 1714.10 unless the party making the claim 2. 95-203 has established that there is a "reasonable probability" that the party will prevail in the action.

1995(People v. Turner (1994) 8 Cal.4th 137, 195 ; Mann v. Macy (1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 666, 674 .) In the civil law context, it is to be observed that a cause of action may not be filed for civil conspiracy under the provisions of Civil Code section 1714.10 unless the party making the claim 2. 95-203 has established that there is a "reasonable probability" that the party will prevail in the action.

1985This requirement is founded upon equitable principles: “ ‘ “ ‘Equity will not interpose its remedial power in the accomplishment of what seemingly would be nothing but an idly and expensively futile act, nor will it purposely speculate in a field where there has been no proof as to what beneficial *1225 purpose may be subserved through its intervention.’” ’” (Karlsen v. American Sav. & Loan Assn., supra, 15 Cal.App.3d 112, 118 , italics omitted.) It would be futile to set aside a foreclosure sale on the technical ground that notice was improper, if the party making the challenge did not first

1891The party making the defense is permitted to use no instrument and no power beyond what will prove simply effectual.” And on appeal this court held that “ this definition excludes all that class of cases,” etc. In People v. Flanagan, 60 Cal. 2 , 44 Am.

1891Rep. 52 , in the instruction held to be erroneous the court used the language “manifestly endeavoring and intending to commit a felony,” while in the Code, “or” is used instead of “and.” In People v. Gonzales, 71 Cal. 569 , the jury were told in the seventeenth instruction that “the necessity must be apparent, actual, imminent, absolute, and unavoidable ”; and this court held the instruction to he contradictory and misleading.