Case law

In Re Fremont General Corp. Litigation

564 F. Supp. 2d 1156 · District Court, C.D. California · May 30, 2008

Moench v. … Acosta v. Pac. Enters., 950 F.2d 611 , 618-619 (9th Cir.1991). Similarly, in Bins v.

Aminoil, Inc. v. United States

646 F. Supp. 294 · District Court, C.D. California · Jun 30, 1986

Louis, Iron Mountain and Southern Railway Co. v. Williams, 251 U.S. 63 , 40 S.Ct. 71 , 64 L.Ed. 139 (1919). The Court also cited the recent Second Circuit opinion in Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. … In Union Electric Co. v.

Franco-Gonzales v. Holder

767 F. Supp. 2d 1034 · District Court, C.D. California · Feb 1, 2011

order by the Board of Immigration Appeals. 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a)(47)(B); see also Singh, 499 F.3d at 979 . … V.

King v. Giurbino

538 F. Supp. 2d 1269 · District Court, C.D. California · Feb 28, 2008

Brown is inapposite, however, since the California Supreme Court specifically found the defendant had made a contemporaneous objection to the evidence he sought to challenge on appeal. … ; Engle v.

Smiddy v. Varney

574 F. Supp. 710 · District Court, C.D. California · Jun 3, 1983

As required by Kessler v. … See Bradley v. School Board of the City of Richmond, 416 U.S. 696, 723 , 94 S.Ct. 2006, 2022 , 40 L.Ed.2d 476 (1974).

Northrop Corp. v. Triad Financial Establishment

593 F. Supp. 928 · District Court, C.D. California · Sep 4, 1984

Barger, a member of the Executive Committee of Northrop’s Board of Directors, met with Prince Sultan in Saudi Arabia. … King or by the Council of Ministers, and that the Board of Settlement would in all likelihood enforce the prohibitions of the Decree.

Glen Love v. Benjamin Sanza

District Court, C.D. California · Oct 8, 2024

Plaintiff alleges that the state warrant was premised on a “fictitious allegation that Raythel Brown and Wiley Ivory were involved in a shooting.” [Id. at 5.] … v.

Lindsey v. Craven

365 F. Supp. 948 · District Court, C.D. California · Nov 6, 1973

The reason why a State court’s adjudication of facts relating to a claim of denial of constitutional right cannot be final or binding upon a federal court in a habeas corpus proceeding was noted in Brown v. … In Simmons v.

Maurice Washington v. Pfeiffer

District Court, C.D. California · Mar 11, 2021

Id.; Burton v. … Brown v. Muniz, 889 F.3d 661, 6 667, 676 (9th Cir. 2018) (“petitioner’s burden is higher” under statute to 7 bring successive habeas action); Prince v. Lizzaraga, 733 F.

Thomas v. City of Los Angeles

638 F. Supp. 1305 · District Court, C.D. California · Jul 22, 1986

Walker v. Northern San Diego County Hospital Dist., (1982) 135 Cal.App.3d 896 , 185 Cal.Rptr. 617 ; see Williams v. County of Los Angeles, (1978) 22 Cal.3d 731 , 150 Cal.Rptr. 475 , 586 P.2d 956 . 2. Dr. … Bogacki v. Board of Supervisors, (1971) 5 Cal.3d 771, 783 , 97 Cal.Rptr. 657 , 489 P.2d 537 . 4. Dr. Thomas was not given a full and fair hearing before an impartial tribunal. 5. The balance of hardships favors Dr.

Aguilera v. Baca

394 F. Supp. 2d 1203 · District Court, C.D. California · Sep 15, 2005

Brown, 443 U.S. at 51 , 99 S.Ct. 2637 , 61 L.Ed.2d 357 . … Nor is Plaintiffs’ attempt to analogize this case to United States v. Brown, 951 F.2d 999 (9th Cir.1991), convincing.

Roberson v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States

661 F. Supp. 416 · District Court, C.D. California · May 27, 1987

But see Presti v. … Franchise Tax Board of the State of California v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern California, 463 U.S. 1, 23 , 103 S.Ct. 2841, 2853 , 77 L.Ed.2d 420, 439 (1983) (referring to Avco Corp. v.

Bennie Hamilton v. Kold Trans, LLC

District Court, C.D. California · Mar 27, 2024

In the 4AC, Hamilton added three additional named plaintiffs: Kristopher Kaczanowski 17 (“Kaczanowski”), Leroy Coker (“Coker”), and Darrell Brown (“Brown,” or collectively with 18 Hamilton, Killion, Kaczanowski, and … Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 255 (1936).

Zaldivar v. City of Los Angeles

590 F. Supp. 852 · District Court, C.D. California · Jul 10, 1984

Christiansburg Garment Co. v. … See Browning Debenture Holders’ Comm. v. Dasa Corp., 560 F.2d 1078, 1088 (2d Cir.1977). Rule 11 proscribes the filing of claims such as the one before this Court even though not brought in subjective bad faith.

In Re Application of Mgndichian

312 F. Supp. 2d 1250 · District Court, C.D. California · Oct 23, 2003

Buckhannon Board, and Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598, 604 , 121 S.Ct. 1835 , 149 L.Ed.2d 855 (2001); Miles v. … United States v. Campbell, 291 F.3d 1169, 1172 (9th Cir.2002) (“In Perez-Arellano v.

Gerardo Cabanillas v. City of South Gate

District Court, C.D. California · Aug 8, 2025

v. … Comm’rs of Bryan Cnty., Okl. v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 8 409 (1997)).

Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Monex Credit Co.

311 F. Supp. 3d 1173 · District Court, C.D. California · May 1, 2018

Brown , 529 U.S. at 133 , 120 S.Ct. 1291 (quoting FTCv.MandelBros.,Inc. , 359 U.S. 385 , 389, 79 S.Ct. 818 , 3 L.Ed.2d 893 (1959) ). … See Knievel v. ESPN , 393 F.3d 1068 , 1076-77 (9th Cir. 2005).

C.N. v. Wolf

410 F. Supp. 2d 894 · District Court, C.D. California · Nov 28, 2005

See also Doe v. … Hall v.

Jiminez v. Pioneer Diecasters

549 F. Supp. 677 · District Court, C.D. California · Sep 30, 1982

Profit Sharing Plan (“Profit Sharing Plan”), and the second against the remaining defendants, the Board of Directors of Pioneer Diecasters, Inc., the Profit Sharing Plan Committee, Carl Spahr, Robert C. … Free v. Gilbert Hodgman, Inc., 3 EBC 1010, 1012 (N.D.Ill. Feb. 4, 1982); Short v. Junior Steel Co. Employees Pension Plan & Trust, 317 BNA Pension Reporter A-17 (C.D.Cal. Sept. 18, 1980) (Pfaelzer, J.); Eaton v.

League of Women Voters v. Federal Communications Commission

489 F. Supp. 517 · District Court, C.D. California · Mar 10, 1980

Village of Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Environment, -U.S.-,-, 100 S.Ct. 826, 834 , 63 L.Ed.2d 73 (1980) (emphasis added). … See, Moore v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 47 , 91 S.Ct. 1292 , 28 L.Ed.2d 590 (1971) and Muskrat v. United States, 219 U.S. 346 , 31 S.Ct. 250 , 55 L.Ed. 246 (1911).