11 California opinions name it 1 courts 2009–2023 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Kimoanh Nguyen-Lam v. Sinh Cuong Caogreen2 sentences2023Consequently, the trial court did not err in permitting plaintiff to amend her complaint to plead actual malice in conformity with the proof presented at the hearing on the strike motion.” (Nguyen, supra, 171 Cal.App.4th at p. 873 .) In this case, however, Sanchez did not present proof of a causal link between making her complaints and flagging her files at the hearing on St. 2016(Cf. ARP Pharmacy Services, Inc. v. Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 1307, 1323 [ 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 256 ] [plaintiff cannot amend pleading to avoid pending anti-SLAPP motion]; Navellier v. Sletten (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 763, 772 [ 131 Cal.Rptr.2d 201 ] [plaintiff cannot use “eleventh-hour amendment” to plead around anti- SLAPP motion].)’ (Nguyen-Lam v. Cao, supra, 171 Cal.App.4th at pp. 871-872.) In short, the court concluded, ‘the trial court did not err in permitting plaintiff to amend her complaint to plead actual malice in conformity with the proof presented at the hear | 2 | 6 |
Navellier v. Slettengreen2 sentences2016(Cf. ARP Pharmacy Services, Inc. v. Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 1307, 1323 [ 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 256 ] [plaintiff cannot amend pleading to avoid pending anti-SLAPP motion]; Navellier v. Sletten (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 763, 772 [ 131 Cal.Rptr.2d 201 ] [plaintiff cannot use “eleventh-hour amendment” to plead around anti- SLAPP motion].)’ (Nguyen-Lam v. Cao, supra, 171 Cal.App.4th at pp. 871-872.) In short, the court concluded, ‘the trial court did not err in permitting plaintiff to amend her complaint to plead actual malice in conformity with the proof presented at the hear 2016(Cf. ARP Pharmacy Services, Inc. v. Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 1307, 1323 [ 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 256 ] [plaintiff cannot amend pleading to avoid pending anti-SLAPP motion]; Navellier v. Sletten (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 763, 772 [ 131 Cal.Rptr.2d 201 ] [plaintiff cannot use “eleventh-hour amendment” to plead around anti- SLAPP motion].)’ (Nguyen-Lam v. Cao, supra, 171 Cal.App.4th at pp. 871-872.) In short, the court concluded, ‘the trial court did not err in permitting plaintiff to amend her complaint to plead actual malice in conformity with the proof presented at the hear | 2 | 3 |
ARP Pharmacy Services, Inc. v. Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc.green2 sentences2016(Cf. ARP Pharmacy Services, Inc. v. Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 1307, 1323 [ 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 256 ] [plaintiff cannot amend pleading to avoid pending anti-SLAPP motion]; Navellier v. Sletten (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 763, 772 [ 131 Cal.Rptr.2d 201 ] [plaintiff cannot use “eleventh-hour amendment” to plead around anti- SLAPP motion].)’ (Nguyen-Lam v. Cao, supra, 171 Cal.App.4th at pp. 871-872.) In short, the court concluded, ‘the trial court did not err in permitting plaintiff to amend her complaint to plead actual malice in conformity with the proof presented at the hear 2016(Cf. ARP Pharmacy Services, Inc. v. Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 1307, 1323 [ 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 256 ] [plaintiff cannot amend pleading to avoid pending anti-SLAPP motion]; Navellier v. Sletten (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 763, 772 [ 131 Cal.Rptr.2d 201 ] [plaintiff cannot use “eleventh-hour amendment” to plead around anti- SLAPP motion].)’ (Nguyen-Lam v. Cao, supra, 171 Cal.App.4th at pp. 871-872.) In short, the court concluded, ‘the trial court did not err in permitting plaintiff to amend her complaint to plead actual malice in conformity with the proof presented at the hear | 2 | 2 |
Simmons v. Allstate Insurancegreen2 sentences2012Co. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1073-1074 [ 112 Cal.Rptr.2d 397 ] [no express or implied right in § 425.16 to be granted leave to amend complaint]; but see Nguyen-Lam v. Cao (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 858, 873 [ 90 Cal.Rptr.3d 205 ] [“trial court did not err in permitting plaintiff to amend her complaint to plead actual malice in conformity with the proof presented at the hearing on the strike motion”].) In addition, the statute requires that the motion “be scheduled by the clerk of the court for a hearing not more than 30 days after the service of the motion unless the docket conditions of the co 2012Co. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1073-1074 [ 112 Cal.Rptr.2d 397 ] [no express or implied right in § 425.16 to be granted leave to amend complaint]; but see Nguyen-Lam v. Cao (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 858, 873 [ 90 Cal.Rptr.3d 205 ] [“trial court did not err in permitting plaintiff to amend her complaint to plead actual malice in conformity with the proof presented at the hearing on the strike motion”].) In addition, the statute requires that the motion “be scheduled by the clerk of the court for a hearing not more than 30 days after the service of the motion unless the docket conditions of the co | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Kimoanh Nguyen-Lam v. Sinh Cuong Caogreen2 sentences2023Consequently, the trial court did not err in permitting plaintiff to amend her complaint to plead actual malice in conformity with the proof presented at the hearing on the strike motion.” (Nguyen, supra, 171 Cal.App.4th at p. 873 .) In this case, however, Sanchez did not present proof of a causal link between making her complaints and flagging her files at the hearing on St. 2016(Cf. ARP Pharmacy Services, Inc. v. Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 1307, 1323 [ 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 256 ] [plaintiff cannot amend pleading to avoid pending anti-SLAPP motion]; Navellier v. Sletten (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 763, 772 [ 131 Cal.Rptr.2d 201 ] [plaintiff cannot use “eleventh-hour amendment” to plead around anti- SLAPP motion].)’ (Nguyen-Lam v. Cao, supra, 171 Cal.App.4th at pp. 871-872.) In short, the court concluded, ‘the trial court did not err in permitting plaintiff to amend her complaint to plead actual malice in conformity with the proof presented at the hear | 2 | 6 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re David H.
green
2 sentences2021(Id. at pp. 689–690.) And in In re David H. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1626 (David H.), the court held a petition under section 300, subdivision (a), that alleged the child had suffered serious physical harm inflicted non-accidentally by his mother 12 could properly be amended to conform to the proof presented at the hearing that the child faced a current substantial risk of harm if returned to the mother’s custody. 2014(Id. at pp. 689-690.) In In re David H. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1626 , the court held a petition under section 300, subdivision (a), that alleged the child had suffered serious physical harm inflicted nonaccidentally by his mother could properly be amended to conform to the proof presented at the hearing that the child faced a current substantial risk of harm if returned to the mother’s custody.4 (Id. at pp. 1644-1645.) In In re Jessica C. (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 1027, 1041-1042 , the court held it was error for the dependency court to refuse to permit an amendment that modified the description o | 3 | 2013–2021 |
Orange County Social Services Agency v. Remberto C.
green
2 sentences2014(Id. at pp. 689-690.) In In re David H. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1626 , the court held a petition under section 300, subdivision (a), that alleged the child had suffered serious physical harm inflicted nonaccidentally by his mother could properly be amended to conform to the proof presented at the hearing that the child faced a current substantial risk of harm if returned to the mother’s custody.4 (Id. at pp. 1644-1645.) In In re Jessica C. (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 1027, 1041-1042 , the court held it was error for the dependency court to refuse to permit an amendment that modified the description o 2013(Id. at pp. 1644-1645.) In Jessica C., supra, 93 Cal.App.4th 1027 the court held it was error for the juvenile court to refuse to permit an amendment that modified the description of the sexual abuse by substituting the word “touching” for “penetrating” the child’s vagina. | 2 | 2013–2014 |
Slauson Partnership v. Ochoa
green
2 sentences2012(Cf. ARP Pharmacy Services, Inc. v. Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 1307, 1323 [ 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 256 ] [plaintiff cannot amend pleading to avoid pending anti-SLAPP motion]; Navellier v. Sletten (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 763, 772 [ 131 Cal.Rptr.2d 201 ] [plaintiff cannot use ‘eleventh-hour amendment’ to plead around anti-SLAPP motion].)” (Nguyen-Lam v. Cao, supra, 171 Cal.App.4th at pp. 871-872.) In short, the court concluded, “the trial court did not err in permitting plaintiff to amend her complaint to plead actual malice in conformity with the proof presented at the heari 2012(Cf. ARP Pharmacy Services, Inc. v. Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 1307, 1323 [ 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 256 ] [plaintiff cannot amend pleading to avoid pending anti-SLAPP motion]; Navellier v. Sletten (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 763, 772 [ 131 Cal.Rptr.2d 201 ] [plaintiff cannot use ‘eleventh-hour amendment’ to plead around anti-SLAPP motion].)” (Nguyen-Lam v. Cao, supra, 171 Cal.App.4th at pp. 871-872.) In short, the court concluded, “the trial court did not err in permitting plaintiff to amend her complaint to plead actual malice in conformity with the proof presented at the heari | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.