stand-alone claim in California

2018(Compare, e.g., People v. Valli (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 786 , 798, 114 Cal.Rptr.3d 335 ( Valli ) [ Britt reflects that " Kellett is not necessarily a simple 'different time/different place' limitation"] with People v. Marlow , supra , 34 Cal.4th at pp. 143-144, 17 Cal.Rptr.3d 825 , 96 P.3d 126 [ Kellett held inapplicable to murders argued to be related by common motive but carried out at different times in different locations].) Here, Linville's offenses were committed at different times in different places.

2018(Compare, e.g., People v. Valli (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 786 , 798, 114 Cal.Rptr.3d 335 ( Valli ) [ Britt reflects that " Kellett is not necessarily a simple 'different time/different place' limitation"] with People v. Marlow , supra , 34 Cal.4th at pp. 143-144, 17 Cal.Rptr.3d 825 , 96 P.3d 126 [ Kellett held inapplicable to murders argued to be related by common motive but carried out at different times in different locations].) Here, Linville's offenses were committed at different times in different places.

2025(See Herrejon v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (E.D.Cal. 2013) 980 F.Supp.2d 1186, 1208 [right to an accounting is derivative; it must be based on other claims].) “Generally, an underlying fiduciary relationship, such as a partnership, will support an accounting, but the action does not lie merely because the books and records are complex. [Citations.] Some underlying misconduct on the part of the defendant must be shown to invoke the right to this equitable remedy.” (Prakashpalan v. Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1105, 1137 .) Under these principles, McCullagh established both t

2025Cal. 2016) 218 F.Supp.3d 1112, 1114 .) Section 1681n, subdivision (a), provides a cause of action for a consumer whose rights are violated: “Any person who willfully fails to comply with any requirement imposed under this subchapter with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer in an amount equal to the sum of-- [¶] (1)(A) any actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or damages of not less than $100 and not more than $1,000 . . . .” Subdivision (a)(3) further allows a successful consumer to recover costs and reasonable attorney fees. 1 A “consumer report” i

2024(Goldman, supra, 173 Cal.App.4th at p. 231 .) In this context, “ ‘presum[ing] the existence of’ an agreement is not a stand-alone principle, but merely an elaboration of the underlying principle, stated in all the cases: actual reliance on the terms of the agreement to impose liability on the nonsignatory.” (Ibid.; see also Mattson Technology, Inc. v. Applied Materials, Inc. (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 1149 , 1156 [“Nor is it sufficient that . . . the controversy would not have occurred but for the existence of the contract, provided the contract is not the basis for the claims against the nonsignat

2024Rather, the plaintiff actually relied on the terms of his employment contract in suing the nonsignatory successor employer, including by asserting claims for breach of and interference with the employment contract.4 ( Boucher, supra, 127 Cal.App.4th at pp. 265–266, 272–273.) 4 In Boucher, the plaintiff’s original employer transferred all of its operations and assets to another subsidiary of the same parent company, which tried to give the plaintiff a less generous compensation package.

2022A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.’ ” ’ ” (People v. Lucas (1995) 12 Cal.4th 415, 436 .) “[T]he question is not what the ‘best lawyers would have done,’ nor ‘even what most good lawyers would have done,’ but simply whether ‘some reasonable lawyer’ could have acted, in the circumstances, as defense counsel acted in the case at bar. [Citation.] A defendant must show that his attorney’s performance fell below this objective standard of reasonableness by a preponderance of the evidence.” (People v. Jones (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 216, 235 , ci

2022A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.’ ” ’ ” (People v. Lucas (1995) 12 Cal.4th 415, 436 .) “[T]he question is not what the ‘best lawyers would have done,’ nor ‘even what most good lawyers would have done,’ but simply whether ‘some reasonable lawyer’ could have acted, in the circumstances, as defense counsel acted in the case at bar. [Citation.] A defendant must show that his attorney’s performance fell below this objective standard of reasonableness by a preponderance of the evidence.” (People v. Jones (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 216, 235 , ci

2022A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.’ ” ’ ” (People v. Lucas (1995) 12 Cal.4th 415, 436 .) “[T]he question is not what the ‘best lawyers would have done,’ nor ‘even what most good lawyers would have done,’ but simply whether ‘some reasonable lawyer’ could have acted, in the circumstances, as defense counsel acted in the case at bar. [Citation.] A defendant must show that his attorney’s performance fell below this objective standard of reasonableness by a preponderance of the evidence.” (People v. Jones (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 216, 235 , ci

2022(Shamsian v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 967, 984 .) In short, because we have affirmed the trial court’s sustaining of defendants’ demurrer to all of the claims alleged in the operative complaint, Clark cannot seek injunctive relief as a stand-alone claim against defendants.

2015Kirby, supra, Cal.4th 1244 did not require the denial of attorney fees for claims ‘intertwined” with meal or rest period claims, as the case dealt with a stand-alone claim under Labor Code section 226.7.

2013We are satisfied the jury understood this form 16 La Costa appears to argue use of CACI No. VF-300 was entirely improper because it is to be used "solely" for claims of breach of contract, and "does not [cover] a stand- alone claim for breach of the implied covenant . . . ." La Costa cites nothing to support that claim, and it is contrary to the user comments that CACI No. VF-300 "is intended for use in most contract disputes." Because the covenant of good faith and fair dealing is merely an additional clause implied in law "as a supplement to the express contractual covenants" (Racine & Laram

2013We are satisfied the jury understood this form 16 La Costa appears to argue use of CACI No. VF-300 was entirely improper because it is to be used "solely" for claims of breach of contract, and "does not [cover] a stand- alone claim for breach of the implied covenant . . . ." La Costa cites nothing to support that claim, and it is contrary to the user comments that CACI No. VF-300 "is intended for use in most contract disputes." Because the covenant of good faith and fair dealing is merely an additional clause implied in law "as a supplement to the express contractual covenants" (Racine & Laram