plaintiff makes claim in California

2022If, for instance, a plaintiff makes a tactical decision early in the history of a case that leads inevitably to a later claim of impracticability (Tanguilig v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 313 ), or if a plaintiff makes a claim of impracticability for some period of time early in the history of the case but then later fails to avail itself of a ready means of accelerating the case thereafter (Wilshire Bundy Corp. v. Auerbach (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 1280 ), then what happened outside the claimed tolling period is a factor the court may properly consider in its discretionary det

2022Bank (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 134, 136 , 138-140 (plaintiff argued it was impossible to seek a trial date within the five-year period because, for nearly eighteen months as the mandatory trial deadline approached, the court failed to notify his counsel the case was eligible for a trial readiness certificate; it was not an abuse of discretion to reject that argument where the plaintiff could not show diligence prior to the final eighteen months in the mandatory time-to-trial period, and he failed to seek a special trial setting until 40 days before expiration of the deadline). 12 According to the

2022Bank (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 134, 136 , 138-140 (plaintiff argued it was impossible to seek a trial date within the five-year period because, for nearly eighteen months as the mandatory trial deadline approached, the court failed to notify his counsel the case was eligible for a trial readiness certificate; it was not an abuse of discretion to reject that argument where the plaintiff could not show diligence prior to the final eighteen months in the mandatory time-to-trial period, and he failed to seek a special trial setting until 40 days before expiration of the deadline). 12 According to the

2022Bank (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 134, 136 , 138-140 (plaintiff argued it was impossible to seek a trial date within the five-year period because, for nearly eighteen months as the mandatory trial deadline approached, the court failed to notify his counsel the case was eligible for a trial readiness certificate; it was not an abuse of discretion to reject that argument where the plaintiff could not show diligence prior to the final eighteen months in the mandatory time-to-trial period, and he failed to seek a special trial setting until 40 days before expiration of the deadline). 12 According to the

2022Bank (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 134, 136 , 138-140 (plaintiff argued it was impossible to seek a trial date within the five-year period because, for nearly eighteen months as the mandatory trial deadline approached, the court failed to notify his counsel the case was eligible for a trial readiness certificate; it was not an abuse of discretion to reject that argument where the plaintiff could not show diligence prior to the final eighteen months in the mandatory time-to-trial period, and he failed to seek a special trial setting until 40 days before expiration of the deadline). 12 According to the

2022If, for instance, a plaintiff makes a tactical decision early in the history of a case that leads inevitably to a later claim of impracticability (Tanguilig v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 313 ), or if a plaintiff makes a claim of impracticability for some period of time early in the history of the case but then later fails to avail itself of a ready means of accelerating the case thereafter (Wilshire Bundy Corp. v. Auerbach (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 1280 ), then what happened outside the claimed tolling period is a factor the court may properly consider in its discretionary det

2022Bank (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 134, 136 , 138-140 (plaintiff argued it was impossible to seek a trial date within the five-year period because, for nearly eighteen months as the mandatory trial deadline approached, the court failed to notify his counsel the case was eligible for a trial readiness certificate; it was not an abuse of discretion to reject that argument where the plaintiff could not show diligence prior to the final eighteen months in the mandatory time-to-trial period, and he failed to seek a special trial setting until 40 days before expiration of the deadline). 12 According to the

2022If, for instance, a plaintiff makes a tactical decision early in the history of a case that leads inevitably to a later claim of impracticability (Tanguilig v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 313 ), or if a plaintiff makes a claim of impracticability for some period of time early in the history of the case but then later fails to avail itself of a ready means of accelerating the case thereafter (Wilshire Bundy Corp. v. Auerbach (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 1280 ), then what happened outside the claimed tolling period is a factor the court may properly consider in its discretionary det

2022Bank (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 134, 136 , 138-140 (plaintiff argued it was impossible to seek a trial date within the five-year period because, for nearly eighteen months as the mandatory trial deadline approached, the court failed to notify his counsel the case was eligible for a trial readiness certificate; it was not an abuse of discretion to reject that argument where the plaintiff could not show diligence prior to the final eighteen months in the mandatory time-to-trial period, and he failed to seek a special trial setting until 40 days before expiration of the deadline). 12 According to the

2014Co. v. Barbara B. (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1076, 1081 (Horace Mann).) "Facts extrinsic to the complaint also give rise to a duty to defend when they reveal a possibility that the claim may be covered by the policy." (Ibid.) "Conversely, where such facts eliminate the potential for coverage, the insurer may decline to defend even where the bare allegations of the complaint suggest potential liability." (Pardee Construction Co. (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1340, 1350 (Pardee).) "Any doubt as to whether the facts give rise to a duty to defend is resolved in the insured's favor." (Horace Mann, at p. 1081.) "An i

2014Co. v. Barbara B. (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1076, 1081 (Horace Mann).) "Facts extrinsic to the complaint also give rise to a duty to defend when they reveal a possibility that the claim may be covered by the policy." (Ibid.) "Conversely, where such facts eliminate the potential for coverage, the insurer may decline to defend even where the bare allegations of the complaint suggest potential liability." (Pardee Construction Co. (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1340, 1350 (Pardee).) "Any doubt as to whether the facts give rise to a duty to defend is resolved in the insured's favor." (Horace Mann, at p. 1081.) "An i

2006Although an action in tort may sometimes be brought for the negligent breach of a contractual duty [citation], still the nature of the duty owed and the consequences of its breach must be determined by reference to the contract which created that duty.'" ( Morse, supra , 15 Cal.App.3d at p. 687 .) The court held that while the alarm companies may have been negligent in performance of their contractual duties, their negligence did not create the harm. ( Morse, supra , 151 Cal.App.3d at p. 687 .) The court went on to hold that the primary cause of loss was the creator of the fire or the burglar

2006Although an action in tort may sometimes be brought for the negligent breach of a contractual duty [citation], still the nature of the duty owed and the consequences of its breach must be determined by reference to the contract which created that duty.'" ( Morse, supra , 15 Cal.App.3d at p. 687 .) The court held that while the alarm companies may have been negligent in performance of their contractual duties, their negligence did not create the harm. ( Morse, supra , 151 Cal.App.3d at p. 687 .) The court went on to hold that the primary cause of loss was the creator of the fire or the burglar

2006Although an action in tort may sometimes be brought for the negligent breach of a contractual duty [citation], still the nature of the duty owed and the consequences of its breach must be determined by reference to the contract which created that duty.'" ( Morse, supra , 15 Cal.App.3d at p. 687 .) The court held that while the alarm companies may have been negligent in performance of their contractual duties, their negligence did not create the harm. ( Morse, supra , 151 Cal.App.3d at p. 687 .) The court went on to hold that the primary cause of loss was the creator of the fire or the burglar

1953However, the plaintiff makes no claim that a duty was owed to it outside of that created by the contract, and no breach of *188 duty was alleged other than a failure to render the contracted for service. [14] Although an action in tort may sometimes be brought for the negligent breach of a contractual duty (Jones v. Kelly, 208 Cal. 251 [ 280 P. 942 ]), still the nature of the duty owed and the consequences of its breach must be determined by reference to the contract which created that duty.

1953However, the plaintiff makes no claim that a duty was owed to it outside of that created by the contract, and no breach of *188 duty was alleged other than a failure to render the contracted for service. [14] Although an action in tort may sometimes be brought for the negligent breach of a contractual duty (Jones v. Kelly, 208 Cal. 251 [ 280 P. 942 ]), still the nature of the duty owed and the consequences of its breach must be determined by reference to the contract which created that duty.