Alejandro Rios v. Puente Hills Ford

What the court wrote

Verbatim from the court's document (public domain). Ellipses mark omitted text; nothing is paraphrased.

2 We take our facts from the complaint. 3 Rios cites “Stanley v. Univ. of Southern California (2022) 98 Cal.App.5th 151” for the proposition that a defendant's unilateral misunderstanding as to a plaintiff's intent is unenforceable against the plaintiff. He cites “Eustace v. Lynch (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1457” for the proposition that general releases must be accompanied by a Civil Code section 1542 waiver. These reporter citations lead to decisions with entirely different names, and which do not support Rios's claims. Although we located decisions with the case names Rios provided, the existing Stanley decision is from a different jurisdiction and the existing Eustace case was decided 71 years before the nonexistent case Rios cites. (Stanley v. University of Southern California (9th Cir. 1994) 13 F.3d 1313; Eustace v. Lynch (1941) 43 Cal.App.2d 486.) The actual cases with these names do not support Rios's claims. 4 Rios purports to quote from Osumi and Fiore in his brief on appeal, but the quotations do not exist in those cases. Government Works.

Authorities cited in the passage: Stanley v. Univ. of Southern California (2022) 98 Cal.App.5th 151 · Eustace v. Lynch (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1457 · Osumi v. Sutton · Fiore v. Alvord · Stanley v. Univ. of Southern California · Eustace v. Lynch · Stanley v. University of Southern California