The Guide is an invaluable online tool for litigation and transactional attorneys. The Guide provides for more than 70 common law causes of action:

- Each action’s elements;
- The most recent state and federal cases that cite the actions’ elements;
- The applicable statute of limitations for each action; and
- Defenses to each cause of action.
- AND, The Guide is updated annually.

FREE – No credit card or payment required. Testimonials

Quantum Meruit

1 Elements and Case Citations

“‘Quantum meruit refers to the well-established principle that “the law implies a promise to pay for services performed under circumstances disclosing that they were not gratuitously rendered.”. . . To recover in quantum meruit, a party need not prove the existence of a contract. . ., but it must show the circumstances were such that “the services were rendered under some understanding or expectation of both parties that compensation therefor was to be made” . . .’”

Fair v. Bakhtiari, 195 Cal. App. 4th 1135, 1150 (2011).

“[A] plaintiff must establish both [1] that he or she was acting pursuant to either an express or implied request for such services from the defendant and [2] that the services rendered were intended to and did benefit the defendant.”

Day v. Alta Bates Medical Center, 98 Cal. App. 4th 243, 248 (2002) (emphasis in original).

CALIFORNIA STATE COURTS

Supreme Court of California: Huskinson & Brown v. Wolf, 32 Cal. 4th 453, 458 (2004).

California 1st District: Fair v. Bakhtiari, 195 Cal. App. 4th 1135, 1150 (2011); Day v. Alta Bates Medical Center, 98 Cal. App. 4th 243, 248 (2002).

California 2d District: Advanced Choices, Inc. v. State Dept. of Health Services, 182 Cal. App. 4th 1661, 1673 (2010).

California 3d District: Olsen v. Harbison, 191 Cal. App. 4th 325, 330 (2010).

California 4th District: Strong v. Beydoun, 166 Cal. App. 4th 1398, 1404 (2008).

California 5th District: Meredith v. Marks, 212 Cal. App. 2d 265, 272 (1963).

California 6th District: Miller v. Campbell, Warburton, Fitzsimmons, Smith, Mendel & Pastore, 162 Cal. App. 4th 1331, 1344 (2008).

CALIFORNIA FEDERAL COURTS

United States Court of Appeal for the 9th Circuit: Chase Inv. Servs. Corp. v. Law Offices of Jon Divens & Assocs., LLC, 491 Fed. Appx. 793, 796 (9th Cir. 2012); GR Corp. v. Amway Corp., 28 Fed. Appx. 709, 710-11 (9th Cir. 2002).

Central District: Yagman v. Galipo, No. CV 12-7908-GW(SHx), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120497, at *33 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2013); Gateway Rehab & Wellness Ctr., Inc. v. Aetna Health of Cal., Inc., No. SACV 13-0087-DOC (MLGx), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53401, at *10 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2013).

Eastern District: Lewis v. William Michael Stemler, Inc., No. S-13-0574 KJM EFB, 2013 U.S. Dis. LEXIS 137885, at *12 (E.D. Cal. 25, 2013).

Northern District: Fredianelli v. Jenkins, 931 F. Supp. 2d 1001, 1024 (N.D. Cal. 2013).

Southern District: Reinicke v. Creative Empire, LLC, No. 12cv1405-GPC(KSC), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9793, at *9 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2013); Brooks v. Motsenbocker Advanced Devs., Inc., No. 07cv773 BTM(NLS), 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55392, at *21 (S.D. Cal. July 21, 2008).

2 Issues and Defenses to Claim for Quantum Meruit

(1) Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 431.30(b)(2) (pleading affirmative defenses), and other standard defenses. See Chapter 1 for all defenses.

(2) Statute of Limitations: Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 339.1 (two years) (obligation not based on a written contract).

(3) Burdens of Proof: “The burden is on the person making the quantum meruit claim to show the value of his or her services and that they were rendered at the request of the person to be charged.” Miller v. Campbell, Warburton, Fitzsimmons, Smith, Mendel & Pastore, 162 Cal. App. 4th 1331, 1344 (2008). However, “unless the parties are near relatives, the recipient of the services has the burden to prove the defense that the services were rendered gratuitously or without obligation on his part to pay.” Id.

(4) Special Contract: “[A} defense that the work was performed under a special contract is affirmative in character and the recipient of the services has the burden of proof.” Miller v. Campbell, Warburton, Fitzsimmons, Smith, Mendel & Pastore, 162 Cal. App. 4th 1331, 1344 (2008).