Skip to main content
· 9/7/2016

People v. Sibrian

Citations

  • 3 Cal. App. 5th 127
  • 207 Cal. Rptr. 3d 428
  • 2016 Cal. App. LEXIS 748

How courts have described this case

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

  • explaining that we may affirm a district court’s judgment on an alternative basis if apparent from the record
  • observing that “courts have traditionally looked to the Restatement of Agency” to derive a federal common law of agency
  • granting summary judgment when the evidence established that there was no agency relationship between the defendant and the telemarketers
  • dismissing a Rule 56(d) motion because plaintiffs’ requests “do not . . . explain how that evidence would create a triable issue”
  • dismissing a Rule 56(d) motion because plaintiffs’ requests “do not... explain how that evidence would create a triable issue”
  • finding no ratification where plaintiff failed to produce any evidence that the defendant had increased its sales as a result of the unlawful telemarketing

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Banke, Humes, Dondero

Read full opinion on CourtListener

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.