performance doctrine in California

2014Even if the study is subject to administrative approval, it is analogous to the sort of post hoc rationalization of agency actions that has been repeatedly condemned in decisions construing CEQA.’ ” (Communities for a Better Environment v. City of Richmond, supra, 184 Cal.App.4th at p. 92 , quoting Sundstrom, supra, 202 Cal.App.3d at p. 307 .) The City argues the market study mitigation requirement has a specific performance standard in that each market study will have to show there is “adequate retail demand for the proposed tenants at the site.” (Italics added.) A showing of sufficient deman

2014Even if the study is subject to administrative approval, it is analogous to the sort of post hoc rationalization of agency actions that has been repeatedly condemned in decisions construing CEQA.’ ” (Communities for a Better Environment v. City of Richmond, supra, 184 Cal.App.4th at p. 92 , quoting Sundstrom, supra, 202 Cal.App.3d at p. 307 .) The City argues the market study mitigation requirement has a specific performance standard in that each market study will have to show there is “adequate retail demand for the proposed tenants at the site.” (Italics added.) A showing of sufficient deman

2024(See Gupta v. Trustees of California State University, supra, 40 Cal.App.5th at p. 520 [referring to individuals allegedly “treated more favorably” than the plaintiff as “comparator[s]”]; see also Allen v. Staples, Inc. (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 188 , 194; 10 “Because of the similarity between state and federal employment discrimination laws, California courts look to pertinent federal precedent when applying our own statutes.” (Guz, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 354 ; see Bailey v. San Francisco Dist.

2024(See Gupta v. Trustees of California State University, supra, 40 Cal.App.5th at p. 520 [referring to individuals allegedly “treated more favorably” than the plaintiff as “comparator[s]”]; see also Allen v. Staples, Inc. (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 188 , 194; 10 “Because of the similarity between state and federal employment discrimination laws, California courts look to pertinent federal precedent when applying our own statutes.” (Guz, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 354 ; see Bailey v. San Francisco Dist.

2022We independently review “whether defendants have exceeded the scope of authority delegated by the Legislature to them.” (Southern California Gas Co. v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist., supra, 200 Cal.App.4th at p. 268 .) Here, however, appellants do not argue the Board does not have authority to enact prescriptive standards.

2022We independently review “whether defendants have exceeded the scope of authority delegated by the Legislature to them.” (Southern California Gas Co. v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist., supra, 200 Cal.App.4th at p. 268 .) Here, however, appellants do not argue the Board does not have authority to enact prescriptive standards.

2018The cases they cite as authority, including Escamilla v. California Insurance Guarantee Association (1983) 150 Cal.App.3d 53 , 197 Cal.Rptr. 463 , concern whether parties waived their right to a jury trial, not whether they waived their right to appeal errors that occurred before they requested the court to decide a controversy, which is the particular issue here.

2018The cases they cite as authority, including Escamilla v. California Insurance Guarantee Association (1983) 150 Cal.App.3d 53 , 197 Cal.Rptr. 463 , concern whether parties waived their right to a jury trial, not whether they waived their right to appeal errors that occurred before they requested the court to decide a controversy, which is the particular issue here.

2016(In re Resendiz [(2001) 25 Cal.4th 230 ], 240–242.)[2] ‘[T]hat a defendant may have received valid section 1016.5 advisements from the court does not entail that he has received effective assistance of counsel in evaluating or responding to such advisements.’ [Citation.] Constitutionally adequate assistance ‘“must be determined by a standard bottomed on the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution and article I, section 15 of the California Constitution.”’ [Citation.] Therefore ‘[i]n any case presenting an ineffectiveness claim, the performance inquiry must be whether counsel’s assist

2001Section 1016.5 The Attorney General argues, as does Justice Brown in her concurring and dissenting opinion, that a trial court's having provided a section 1016.5 advisement "should shield pleas from collateral attack" (cone. & dis. opn. of Brown, J., post, at p. 453, 19 P.3d at p. 1192 ) based on immigration consequences.

2014Even if the study is subject to administrative approval, it is analogous to the sort of post hoc rationalization of agency actions that has been repeatedly condemned in decisions construing CEQA.’ ” (Communities for a Better Environment v. City of Richmond, supra, 184 Cal.App.4th at p. 92 , quoting Sundstrom, supra, 202 Cal.App.3d at p. 307 .) The City argues the market study mitigation requirement has a specific performance standard in that each market study will have to show there is “adequate retail demand for the proposed tenants at the site.” (Italics added.) A showing of sufficient deman

2014Even if the study is subject to administrative approval, it is analogous to the sort of post hoc rationalization of agency actions that has been repeatedly condemned in decisions construing CEQA.’ ” (Communities for a Better Environment v. City of Richmond, supra, 184 Cal.App.4th at p. 92 , quoting Sundstrom, supra, 202 Cal.App.3d at p. 307 .) The City argues the market study mitigation requirement has a specific performance standard in that each market study will have to show there is “adequate retail demand for the proposed tenants at the site.” (Italics added.) A showing of sufficient deman

2010To enforce this performance standard, the EIR provides a list of potential mitigation strategies . . . .” Chevron contends that the mitigation strategy employed in this case is similar to the mitigation plans upheld in California Native Plant Society v. City of Rancho Cordova (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 603 [ 91 Cal.Rptr.3d 571 ] (CNPS) and in SOCA, supra, 229 Cal.App.3d 1011 .

2010To enforce this performance standard, the EIR provides a list of potential mitigation strategies . . . .” Chevron contends that the mitigation strategy employed in this case is similar to the mitigation plans upheld in California Native Plant Society v. City of Rancho Cordova (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 603 [ 91 Cal.Rptr.3d 571 ] (CNPS) and in SOCA, supra, 229 Cal.App.3d 1011 .

2026“What constitutes substantial performance is a question of fact, but it is essential that there be no wilful departure from the terms of the contract, and that the defects be such as may be easily remedied or compensated, so that the promisee may get practically what the contract calls for.” (Posner v. Grunwald-Marx, Inc. (1961) 56 Cal.2d 169, 187 ; see Murray’s Iron Works, supra, 158 Cal.App.4th at p. 1293 [substantial performance on construction contract was shown where the jury could reasonably have concluded that the amount of work remaining could be easily fixed].) Cal Garden fails to cit

2024Robert Nattress & Associates v. Cidco (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 55, 64 .) However, when the context of the statement is considered, we have no doubt that the trial court was not commenting on the merits of the specific performance claim; rather, it was explaining that 18 Starflinger had, in fact, elected damages as remedy since he did not “really want[ ]” the Property.

2024(Alvernaz, supra, 2 Cal.4th at p. 933 .) Tellez’s counsel failed to advise him of these consequences even though “Sexually Violent Predator Law” (item 14) was listed but not circled on his plea form under a heading that says “My attorney has explained to me that other possible consequences of this plea may be: (Circle applicable consequences.)” (The relevant part of the form is reprinted below.) This fact alone may be dispositive for the performance inquiry in this case.

2024(See McGuire, supra, 220 Cal.App.4th at p. 522 [“[A] provision in a contract that appears at first glance to be either a liquidated damages clause or an unenforceable penalty provision may instead merely be a provision that permissibly calls for alternative performance by the obligor”].) The cotenancy provision “clearly reserves to [JJD] the power to make a realistic and rational choice.” (Blank, supra, 11 Cal.3d at p. 971 .) JJD can choose to provide a higher level of service (i.e., a mall with anchor tenants or specified 10 JJD-HOV ELK GROVE, LLC v. JO-ANN STORES, LLC Opinion of the Court by

2023Forums for Resolution of Dealer-Manufacturer Disputes “[N]ot every . . . dispute” between dealers and manufacturers “is within the province of the Board.” (Mazda Motor of America, Inc. v. New Motor Vehicle Bd., supra, 110 Cal.App.4th at p. 1456 .) The Board’s jurisdiction is “limited by its statutory authorization”—specifically, section 3050, subdivision (c) and section 3050, subdivision (d).

2023The rule minimizes inconsistencies, and avoids giving one side two bites of the apple. [Citation.] The rule also prevents duplication of effort.” (Hoopes, supra, 168 Cal.App.4th at p. 158 .) It is clear from the trial court’s ruling that it misunderstood the scope of its discretion when it ruled on the Company’s specific performance claim following the jury’s verdict.

2023(Sierra Club, supra, 6 Cal.5th at p. 512 .) 13 As the EIR states, “The net additional GHG emissions associated with the proposed Project is defined as the difference in emissions between the A’s related existing emissions and the Project’s total operational emissions, including construction emissions amortized over the lifetime of the Project.” 35 project sponsor’s current activities and quantifies these emissions.

2023Rather, it failed to meet the requirement of a specific performance standard because the mitigation measure called for a plan that would limit increases in GHG emissions by an amount “up to” no net additional emissions, with the ultimate acceptable reduction left to the discretion of the City Council. ( Communities, supra, 184 Cal.App.4th at pp. 91, 93.) As a result, the only enforceable requirement in the mitigation measure was that the plan reduce GHG emissions to a level that satisfied that body’s “subjective judgment.” (Id. at p. 93.) Communities therefore accurately labeled the purported

2023(Public Health, supra, 60 Cal.4th at pp. 955-956; id. at p. 958 [the proposed harmonization impermissibly “result[ed] in a . . . scheme . . . inconsistent with the requirements of either statute”].) Under Barber’s theory, the words “as to that issue” would be added to the end of section 11713.13, subdivision (g)(2), so that the statute would read, in relevant part: “In any proceeding in which the reasonableness of a performance standard . . . is an issue, the manufacturer . . . shall have the burden of proof as to that issue.” (Cf. Evid.

2023(Public Health, supra, 60 Cal.4th at p. 960 .) In such a case, “ ‘more specific provisions take precedence over more general ones,’ ” even if the more general provisions were enacted later.

2021J. supra, 556 U.S. at p. 884 .) Ultimately, the judge’s comments disparaging the performance of defense counsel and witnesses, though highly inappropriate, did not convey an interest in defendant’s conviction or sentence; the misconduct thus falls short of the “extreme facts” that would raise an objective likelihood that the trial judge here was actually biased against the defendant.

2021(Freeman, supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 1005 .) Accordingly, we find no structural error, and will assess the court’s misconduct for prejudice.

2021Then the court’s power and duty to ensure fairness and preserve the credibility of its judgment extends to recusal even when an informed defendant, for whatever reason, is cooperating in counsel’s tactics.’ [Citation.]” (People v. McKenzie (1983) 34 Cal.3d 616, 629 .) In support of their claim, defendants state competent individual counsel would have minimized the client’s role in the fight, a conflict-free attorney would have advised White not to take the stand and expose himself to impeachment with his prior convictions, and individual representation for White would cause counsel to move to