# California Key Cases — General Civil Practice

A catalog of the California decisions this plugin relies on most
across general civil practice. Subject-matter-specific key cases
(FDCPA, Rosenthal Act, UCL, CLRA, business-records foundation
in debt cases, chain of title) live in
`ca-consumer-debt/references/key-cases.md`.

> **NOT LEGAL ADVICE.** Verify every case is still good law
> before citing. Use Westlaw, Lexis, Google Scholar, or
> CourtListener to confirm the case has not been overruled
> or distinguished.

## Summary judgment (CCP § 437c)

### Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826

The **landmark California summary judgment decision**. Overruled
a line of cases that placed the entire burden on the moving
party and adopted a burden-shifting framework:

- A defendant moving for summary judgment must show that the
  plaintiff cannot establish one or more elements of the cause
  of action, or that there is a complete defense
- Once the defendant makes a prima facie showing, the burden
  shifts to the plaintiff to produce evidence demonstrating a
  triable issue of material fact
- A plaintiff moving for summary judgment must show that there
  is no defense to the cause of action and that no triable
  issue of material fact exists
- The court views the evidence in the light most favorable
  to the opposing party; all reasonable inferences are drawn
  in the opposing party's favor
- "Triable issue of material fact" means the evidence would
  allow a reasonable trier of fact to find the underlying
  fact in favor of the party opposing the motion

The *Aguilar* framework fundamentally changed California summary
judgment practice and aligns it more closely with the federal
*Celotex* standard.

### Merrill v. Navegar, Inc. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 465

Following *Aguilar*:
- Summary judgment is not a disfavored remedy; courts should
  grant SJ when the moving party makes the required showing
- The opposing party may not rely on allegations or denials
  in the pleadings to show a triable issue; admissible evidence
  is required
- Inferences must be reasonable, not speculative

### Dunn v. County of Santa Barbara (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1281

Separate statement of undisputed material facts (CRC 3.1350):
- The separate statement must be complete in itself without
  reference to the points and authorities or supporting
  declarations
- Failure to file a separate statement is grounds to strike
  the motion
- The opposing party must dispute each stated fact or that
  fact is deemed undisputed

## Default judgment and vacation

### Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975

CCP § 473(b) mandatory relief from default:
- When the default was caused by attorney mistake, inadvertence,
  surprise, or neglect, the court must grant relief if the
  attorney files a sworn affidavit of fault
- The mandatory provision applies; the trial court has no
  discretion to deny relief when the affidavit of fault is filed
- Protects clients from attorney negligence

### Shapiro v. Clark (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1128

CCP § 473(b) discretionary relief:
- The court may relieve a party from a judgment taken against
  it through mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable
  neglect
- The policy favors trial on the merits; doubts resolved in
  favor of relief
- The moving party must show a meritorious defense; the court
  weighs the prejudice to the opposing party

## Attorney fees — contractual (Civ. Code § 1717)

### Trope v. Katz (1995) 11 Cal.4th 274

The American Rule baseline and § 1717 scope:
- California follows the American Rule — each party bears
  its own fees absent statutory or contractual authority
- An attorney who represents themselves in pro per cannot
  recover attorney fees under § 1717 even if the contract
  contains a fee clause, because pro se attorneys do not incur
  attorney fees "as a result of the action"
- § 1717 is limited to contract actions; tort claims
  accompanying the contract claim may require a separate
  fee-shifting basis

### Hsu v. Abbara (1995) 9 Cal.4th 863

Determining the prevailing party under § 1717:
- "Prevailing party" under § 1717 is determined on a "practical
  level" — who succeeded as a practical matter
- A party who defeats the other's claims is the prevailing
  party even without an affirmative money judgment
- When neither party prevails entirely, the court has
  discretion to determine there is no prevailing party

### PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084

Lodestar methodology in California:
- The lodestar (hours reasonably expended × reasonable hourly
  rate) is the starting point for calculating attorney fees
- The court considers the complexity of the case, the
  qualifications of counsel, and the prevailing market rate
  in the relevant community
- A multiplier may be applied to reflect contingency risk,
  exceptional results, or preclusion of other work

## Summary judgment — collateral source rule

### Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc. (2011) 52 Cal.4th 541

A significant decision modifying the traditional collateral
source rule in California personal-injury cases:
- A plaintiff is entitled to recover the **reasonable value**
  of medical services — but where a health insurer negotiates
  reduced rates and pays only those reduced amounts, the
  reasonable value is the amount actually accepted by the
  medical provider as full payment, not the original billed
  amount
- A plaintiff cannot recover as economic damages medical
  expenses that were never actually incurred (i.e., billed
  amounts that neither the plaintiff nor insurer ever paid or
  became obligated to pay)
- The decision limits damages in personal injury cases
  where the plaintiff had health insurance that negotiated
  reduced rates (the "Howell rule")

## Premises liability

### Wiener v. Southcoast Childcare Centers, Inc. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1138

Duty of care and foreseeability in premises liability:
- A landowner owes a duty of care to protect persons on the
  premises from harm when the harm is reasonably foreseeable
- The foreseeability analysis is a fact-intensive inquiry;
  it does not focus solely on whether the specific harm
  was foreseeable but rather on the general type of harm
- A daycare center's duty of care extends to protection against
  foreseeable criminal acts on the premises where the nature of
  the operation made such acts reasonably foreseeable

## Employment and FEHA

### Reid v. Google, Inc. (2010) 50 Cal.4th 512

Stray-remarks doctrine and FEHA age discrimination:
- The "stray remarks" doctrine (holding that remarks by
  non-decision-makers or decision-makers temporally remote from
  the adverse decision cannot raise a triable issue) does not
  apply categorically in California FEHA cases
- California courts should consider the totality of the evidence
  rather than categorically excluding circumstantial evidence
- Direct evidence of discriminatory intent (such as a
  decision-maker's age-related comments) is properly considered
  even if not standing alone sufficient to create a triable
  issue

## Parol evidence rule

### Riverisland Cold Storage, Inc. v. Fresno-Madera Production Credit Assn. (2013) 55 Cal.4th 1169

Overruled *Bank of America etc. Assn. v. Pendergrass* (1935)
4 Cal.2d 258, which had held that the parol evidence rule barred
extrinsic evidence of fraudulent oral promises made to induce
execution of a written agreement:
- The fraud exception to the parol evidence rule applies to
  promises made prior to or contemporaneous with execution
  of the written instrument, even if those promises contradict
  the written terms
- A plaintiff may offer extrinsic evidence of a fraudulent
  misrepresentation or promise that was the inducement to
  enter the written contract, without being barred by the
  parol evidence rule
- This decision significantly broadened the fraud exception
  and overruled 78 years of California precedent

## Pleading — demurrer

### Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311

Demurrer standard under CCP § 430.10:
- On demurrer, all properly pleaded material allegations of the
  complaint are deemed true; the court does not pass on the
  truth of the allegations
- The complaint is read as a whole; courts do not nitpick
  isolated words or phrases
- Demurrer challenges the legal sufficiency of the pleading,
  not the truth of the facts alleged
- Leave to amend should be granted when it is reasonably
  possible that the defect can be cured by amendment

### Doe v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4th 531

Pleading "ultimate facts":
- California requires pleading "ultimate facts" — the essential
  facts constituting the cause of action stated in ordinary
  and concise language (CCP § 425.10)
- Pleading conclusions of law without supporting ultimate facts
  is insufficient; the court may sustain a demurrer
- Pleading evidentiary facts (too specific) is also disfavored;
  the ultimate facts occupy the middle ground

## Service of process

### Dill v. Berquist Construction Co. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426

Substituted service under CCP § 415.20:
- Substituted service requires "reasonable diligence" in
  attempting personal service first — at least 3 attempts at
  different times and on different days at the person's dwelling
  or workplace are generally required
- After establishing due diligence, service by leaving papers
  with a competent household member plus mailing is effective
  10 days after mailing
- Insufficient diligence results in invalid service; the court
  lacks personal jurisdiction

## Statute of limitations

### Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 797

Discovery rule (CCP § 338):
- The statute of limitations is tolled until the plaintiff
  knew or reasonably should have discovered the injury and its
  cause
- The "should have discovered" standard is objective — whether
  a reasonable person would have been on inquiry notice
- Once on inquiry notice, the plaintiff must conduct a
  reasonable investigation; limitations begins running on the
  date the plaintiff discovered, or reasonably should have
  discovered, the cause of action

## Recurring use patterns

When a motion for summary judgment needs the standard:
- Cite *Aguilar* for burden shifting
- Cite *Dunn* for separate statement requirements

When a motion to vacate default is filed:
- Cite *Rappleyea* for mandatory § 473(b) relief (attorney
  fault affidavit)
- Cite *Shapiro* for discretionary relief standard

When seeking attorney fees under a contract:
- Cite *Trope* for American Rule baseline
- Cite *Hsu* for prevailing party determination under § 1717
- Cite *PLCM Group* for lodestar methodology

When parol evidence / fraud is at issue:
- Cite *Riverisland* for the fraud exception to parol evidence

When the demurrer standard is at issue:
- Cite *Blank v. Kirwan* for the standard of review

## How to verify a case

```
WebFetch:
  url: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Aguilar+v+Atlantic+Richfield+25+Cal.4th+826
  prompt: Locate the case Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.
          (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826. Confirm the year, reporter,
          and the holding on burden-shifting for summary
          judgment. If the case has been limited or overruled
          by a later California decision, identify that case.
```

Or use CourtListener:
```
WebFetch:
  url: https://www.courtlistener.com/?q=Aguilar+v+Atlantic+Richfield&type=o&court=cal
  prompt: Locate Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
          25 Cal.4th 826. Verify citation and confirm it
          is still good law.
```