California Court of Appeal· 9/23/2009
Morgan v. AT&T Wireless Services, Inc.
Citations
- 177 Cal. App. 4th 1235
- 99 Cal. Rptr. 3d 768
- 48 Communications Reg. (P&F) 795
- 2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 1569
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that, even where notice is not provided before CLRA damages are sought, dismissal with prejudice is not required, and the prayer for damages may be reinstated as soon as notice has been provided and 30 days have elapsed without cure
- holding \a fraudulent 26 business practice is one that is likely to deceive members of the public\
- stating that “the statute expressly allows such an amendment, as long as it is done 30 days or more after filing of the original complaint and compliance with the notice requirement”
- stating that, 11 when a plaintiff violates a technical CLRA notice requirement, California courts dismiss the 12 CLRA claims without prejudice “until 30 days or more after the plaintiff complies with the 13 notice requirement”
- explaining that dismissal with prejudice is - 22 - not required where it is not necessary to further the purpose of providing defendant with an opportunity to correct the alleged wrong before a lawsuit is filed
- declining to dismiss where thirty days had passed without any correction to the alleged misconduct
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Willhite
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
66 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Durell v. Sharp HealthcareCalifornia Court of Appeal· 2010-04-19· cited 265×
- Stearns v. Ticketmaster Corp.Ninth Circuit· 2011-08-22· cited 167×
- Klein v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc.California Court of Appeal· 2012-01-25· cited 163×
- Chapman v. Skype, Inc.California Court of Appeal· 2013-10-04· cited 129×
- Collins v. eMachines, Inc.California Court of Appeal· 2011-11-28· cited 112×
- Gutierrez v. Carmax Auto Superstores Cal.California Court of Appeals, 5th District· 2018-01-30· cited 107×
- Boschma v. Home Loan Center, Inc.California Court of Appeal· 2011-08-10· cited 92×
- John Doe v. Cvs Pharmacy, Inc.Ninth Circuit· 2020-12-09· cited 78×
- In re Carrier IQ, Inc.N.D. California· 2015-01-21· cited 76×
- Tucker v. Pacific Bell Mobile ServicesCalifornia Court of Appeal· 2012-08-07· cited 59×
- Fraley v. Facebook, Inc.N.D. California· 2011-12-16· cited 52×
- Nolte v. Cedars Sinai Medical CenterCalifornia Court of Appeal· 2015-05-21· cited 48×
- Lafferty v. Wells Fargo BankCalifornia Court of Appeal· 2013-02-04· cited 42×
- Pellerin v. Honeywell International, Inc.S.D. California· 2012-07-06· cited 40×
- Beck v. FCA US LLCE.D. Michigan· 2017-08-11· cited 39×
- Veera v. Banana Republic, LLCCalifornia Court of Appeal· 2016-12-15· cited 34×
- Hypertouch, Inc. v. Valueclick, Inc.California Court of Appeal· 2011-02-10· cited 34×
- Mui Ho v. Toyota Motor Corp.N.D. California· 2013-03-14· cited 31×
- Langan v. United Services Automobile Ass'nN.D. California· 2014-09-23· cited 29×
- In Re Ferrero LitigationS.D. California· 2011-06-30· cited 28×
Cites
20 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co.California Supreme Court· 1999-04-08· cited 1,311×
- In Re Tobacco II CasesCalifornia Supreme Court· 2009-05-18· cited 705×
- Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co.California Supreme Court· 1998-09-23· cited 514×
- Committee on Children's Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp.California Supreme Court· 1983-12-22· cited 477×
- Californians for Disability Rights v. Mervyn's, LLCCalifornia Supreme Court· 2006-07-24· cited 250×
- Smith v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal· 2001-11-20· cited 198×
- McKell v. Washington Mutual, Inc.California Court of Appeal· 2006-09-18· cited 164×
- State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1996-05-23· cited 159×
- Meyer v. Sprint Spectrum L.P.California Supreme Court· 2009-01-29· cited 159×
- CALIFORNIANS FOR DISAB. RIGHTS v. Mervyn'sCalifornia Supreme Court· 2006-07-24· cited 150×
- Day v. AT & T CORP.California Court of Appeal· 1998-04-20· cited 139×
- People v. Casa Blanca Convalescent Homes, Inc.California Court of Appeal· 1984-08-23· cited 120×
- Camacho v. AUTO. CLUB OF SO. CALIFORNIACalifornia Court of Appeal· 2006-09-14· cited 109×
- Alfaro v. Community Housing Improvement System & Planning Assn., Inc.California Court of Appeal· 2009-03-18· cited 91×
- Schnall v. Hertz CorporationCalifornia Court of Appeal· 2000-03-07· cited 90×
- Wolfe v. State Farm Fire & Casualty InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1996-06-17· cited 61×
- Motors, Inc. v. Times Mirror Co.California Court of Appeal· 1980-02-25· cited 55×
- Kagan v. Gibraltar Savings & Loan Ass'nCalifornia Supreme Court· 1984-03-19· cited 52×
- Pastoria v. Nationwide InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal· 2003-10-31· cited 37×
- Wurzl v. HollowayCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1996-07-02· cited 34×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.