Search for: "State California v. Superior Court" Results 1541 - 1560 of 3,616
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
27 Oct 2008, 11:51 am
Superior Court, 3 Cal.4th 459 (Cal. 1992)], and more specifically because it did not address whether Citibank’s class arbitration waiver, accompanied by a non-acceptance provision, is unconscionable under California law. [read post]
1 May 2018, 11:02 am by William Sinclair
The California Superior Court denied the dismissal, and the state appellate courts denied review of that ruling. [read post]
1 May 2018, 11:02 am by William Sinclair
The California Superior Court denied the dismissal, and the state appellate courts denied review of that ruling. [read post]
1 May 2014, 4:50 am by Rebecca Tushnet
’” The court first found that California law could apply to everyone, given that defendants are headquartered in the state. [read post]
  United States District Courts in California oversee some of the largest caseloads in the country.[1] Understandably reluctant to see their dockets expand, these courts often look for grounds to remand cases to state court. [read post]
15 May 2016, 4:30 pm by Ad Law Defense
Superior Court, 42 Cal. 4th 443 (Cal. 2007), the California Supreme Court held that a class-action waiver in an employment contract was unenforceable when the waiver would prevent employees from vindicating their rights. [read post]
24 Jun 2011, 1:24 pm by Roy Ginsburg
After the case was filed in 2001, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California certified the class in 2004. [read post]
18 May 2008, 9:43 pm
I’ve read Judge Pittman’s Superior Court Decision in Kerrigan v. [read post]
15 Oct 2010, 8:00 am by Courtney Minick
United States of America et al., a case heard in the United States District Court Central District of California by Judge Virginia A. [read post]
17 May 2021, 1:12 pm by Dennis Crouch
  In particular, the Federal Circuit found (1) sufficient minimum contacts with the state of California related to the cause of action and (2) that exercise of jurisdiction by a California court would be reasonable. = = = Directed to California: If you recall, PerDiemCo repeatedly communicated with Trimble, but only through individuals residing outside of California. [read post]