Utterkar v. Ebix, Inc.

3 Citing cases

  1. Pierotti v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Cal.

    Case No.16-cv-02936-HSG (N.D. Cal. May. 11, 2018)   Cited 2 times

    This would be consistent with the rule that plaintiffs bear the burden of proof with respect to the applicability of analogous equitable doctrines, such as equitable tolling and equitable estoppel. See Fanucci v. Allstate Ins. Co., 638 F. Supp. 2d 1125, 1137 (N.D. Cal. 2009) (equitable tolling) (citing Judelson v. Am. Metal Bearing Co., 89 Cal. App. 2d 256, 266 (1948)); Utterkar v. Ebix, Inc., No. 14-CV-02250-LHK, 2015 WL 1254768, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2015) (equitable estoppel) (citing Honig v. S.F. Planning Dep't, 127 Cal. App. 4th 520, 529 (2005)). The cases from which the Rodriguez court drew the concept of equitable excuse are instructive.

  2. Walker v. Am. Nat'l Ins. Co.

    Case No.16-cv-06255-HSG (N.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2018)   Cited 1 times

    The same is true of a plaintiff asserting equitable estoppel. See Utterkar v. Ebix, Inc., No. 14-CV-02250-LHK, 2015 WL 1254768, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2015) (stating that "under California law, a plaintiff carries the burden of pleading and proving the . . . elements of equitable estoppel") (citing Honig v. S.F. Planning Dep't, 127 Cal. App. 4th 520, 529 (2005)). Here, Plaintiffs have done nothing that approaches meeting those burdens.

  3. 1865 Marcheeta Place, LLC v. Pac. Funding Grp., Inc.

    No. B259553 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 26, 2016)

    In sum, Multani and Marcheeta Place failed to assert a timely cause of action and did not allege a sufficient excuse for that delay. Therefore, they cannot invoke the doctrine of equitable estoppel. (See Vaca v. Wachovia Mortgage Corp. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 737, 746 [equitable estoppel does not apply where, although the defendants initially concealed their identities, plaintiff learned their identities in time to assert a timely cause of action and offered no excuse for failing to do so]; see also Utterkar v. Ebix, Inc. (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2015) 2015 WL 1254768 at p. 4 [allegations that the plaintiff intended to bring suit but refrained from doing so based on general assurances by the defendant and the existence of settlement discussions were insufficient to show that the defendant reasonably induced the plaintiff's forbearance until the statute of limitations had run].)