Baxter v. Genworth N. Am. Corp.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• “In applying the 23 Resolve guidelines and assessing whether a “sufficient” showing has been made to 24 justify additional discovery, an arbitrator might expect a showing beyond simple 25 “good cause,” particularly if the employee seeks discovery well beyond the default 26 limitations.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

16 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Jose Ronderos v. Usf Reddaway, Inc.
  Ninth Circuit· 2024-08-22· cited 19×
• Juarez v. Wash Depot Holdings, Inc.
  California Court of Appeals, 5th District· 2018-07-03· cited 12×
• Juarez v. Wash Depot Holdings
  California Court of Appeal· 2018-07-03
• Dougherty v. Roseville Heritage Partners
  California Court of Appeal· 2020-03-30
• Torrecillas v. Fitness International
  California Court of Appeal· 2020-07-21
• Davis v. Kozak
  California Court of Appeal· 2020-08-19
• Davis v. Kozak
  California Court of Appeal· 2020-08-20
• Fisher v. MoneyGram International, Inc.
  California Court of Appeal· 2021-07-27
• De Leon v. Pinnacle Property Management Services, LLC
  California Court of Appeal· 2021-12-08
• Ramirez v. Charter Communications, Inc.
  California Court of Appeal· 2022-02-18
• Nelson v. Dual Diagnosis Treatment Center
  California Court of Appeal· 2022-04-19
• Murrey v. Superior Court
  California Court of Appeal· 2023-01-30
• Haydon v. Elegance at Dublin
  California Court of Appeal· 2023-12-19
• Cook v. University of Southern California
  California Court of Appeal· 2024-05-24
• Ramirez v. Charter Communications, Inc.
  California Supreme Court· 2024-07-15
• Vo v. Technology Credit Union
  California Court of Appeal· 2025-02-04

Cites

21 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

• Armendariz v. Found. Health Psychcare Servs., Inc.
  California Supreme Court· 2000-08-24· cited 1,269×
• Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co.
  California Supreme Court· 2015-08-03· cited 283×
• Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v. Moreno
  California Supreme Court· 2013-10-17· cited 282×
• Little v. Auto Stiegler, Inc.
  California Supreme Court· 2003-02-27· cited 245×
• Baltazar v. Forever 21, Inc.
  California Supreme Court· 2016-03-28· cited 223×
• Mercuro v. Superior Court
  California Court of Appeal· 2002-02-13· cited 132×
• Fitz v. NCR Corp.
  California Court of Appeal· 2004-04-27· cited 131×
• Pokorny v. Quixtar, Inc.
  Ninth Circuit· 2010-04-20· cited 127×
• Roman v. Superior Court
  California Court of Appeal· 2009-04-13· cited 124×
• Molecular Analytical Systems v. Ciphergen Biosystems, Inc.
  California Court of Appeal· 2010-07-09· cited 103×
• Flores v. Transamerica HomeFirst, Inc.
  California Court of Appeal· 2001-10-12· cited 101×
• Pearson Dental Supplies, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County
  California Supreme Court· 2010-04-26· cited 97×
• Nyulassy v. Lockheed Martin Corp.
  California Court of Appeal· 2004-07-27· cited 96×
• Martinez v. Master Protection Corp.
  California Court of Appeal· 2004-04-15· cited 95×
• Dotson v. Amgen, Inc.
  California Court of Appeal· 2010-01-21· cited 93×
• Pinela v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc.
  California Court of Appeal· 2015-06-30· cited 90×
• Jsm Tuscany, LLC v. Superior Court
  California Court of Appeal· 2011-03-29· cited 84×
• Ontiveros v. DHL Express (USA), Inc.
  California Court of Appeal· 2008-06-30· cited 35×
• Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro v. Schectman
  California Court of Appeal· 1997-06-19· cited 20×
• Ellis v. U.S. Security Associates
  California Court of Appeal· 2014-03-20· cited 19×