Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Section 425

Citation
Section 425
Parent Document
Wallace v. McCubbin, 196 Cal. App. 4th 1169 (2011)
Jurisdiction
California (state)
Effective Date
2011-06-27

Other Sections in This Document (190)

Full Text

782 chars
We note as well that Wallace and Owen’s gestalt approach would result in an elusive, subjective, and unpredictable exercise that would likely lead to inconsistent decisions. As the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals observed in a different but similar context: “The gestalt approach adopted by the district court might cause a number of significant problems. First, a court’s determination of the ‘essence’ of the plaintiff’s claims is likely to be highly metaphysical . . . .” (King v. Otasco, Inc. (5th Cir. 1988) 861 F.2d 438, 441 *1191[trial court erred in applying statute of limitations to the essential nature of the plaintiff’s claims, rather than each individual claim].) Focusing on the acts on which liability is based, by contrast, is clearer, simpler, and more predictable.