Case law

Estate of Maxwell Aguierre v. County of Los Angeles

District Court, C.D. California · Aug 1, 2025

If only a portion or portions of the material on a page 12 qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected 13 portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). … If only a portion or portions of the 23 material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly 24 identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). 25

Newport Components, Inc. v. NEC Home Electronics (U.S.A.), Inc.

671 F. Supp. 1525 · District Court, C.D. California · Sep 29, 1987

Banco Para El Comercio Exterior de Cuba, 462 U.S. 611, 630-32 , 103 S.Ct. 2591, 2601-03 , 77 L.Ed.2d 46 (1983) (foreign state seeking relief in United States court may not assert sovereign immunity defense to counterclaim … The Johnson & Johnson Court reasoned as follows: “Clearly, when the Legislature intends that service is not to be effective until the date of actual receipt, it knows how to say so.

Dow Jones Co. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

219 F.R.D. 167 · District Court, C.D. California · Sep 16, 2003

In response, plaintiffs argue that the public interest in the disclosure of the appendix clearly outweighs the privacy interests of the individuals involved. Plaintiffs’ Mot. at 19-20. … [while] [information relating to business judgments and relationships does not qualify for exemption.” Washington Post, 863 F.2d at 100 (citations omitted).

Quevedo v. MACY'S, INC.

798 F. Supp. 2d 1122 · District Court, C.D. California · Jun 16, 2011

—establishes only that a party does not assent to a contract “when the writing does not appear to be a contract and the terms are not called to the attention of the recipient.” Metters v. … This qualifies as an “employment-related legal dispute” covered by the arbitration agreement. (See Noeth Decl., Ex. B at 37.)

William Christopher Thompson v. Marriott Hotel Services, Inc.

District Court, C.D. California · Sep 11, 2019

If only a portion of the material on a page qualifies for 13 protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) 14 ||(e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). … If only a portion of the 24 material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly 25 ||identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the 26 margins).

Radisson Hotels International, Inc. v. Majestic Towers, Inc.

488 F. Supp. 2d 953 · District Court, C.D. California · Jan 25, 2007

Without more, this does not qualify her to testify to Radisson’s experience in finding replacement franchisees. … The Ninth Circuit has clearly held “[t]he party moving for summary judgment must offer evidence sufficient to support a finding upon every element of his claim for relief, except those elements admitted by his adversary.”

In re Unioil Securities Litigation

107 F.R.D. 615 · District Court, C.D. California · Apr 29, 1985

Plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing that the action may be maintained as a class action. … As defendants recognize, plaintiffs’ attorneys clearly have the competence and experience to conduct this kind of complex litigation and therefore the first prong of Rule 23(a)(4) is easily satisfied.

Ratliff v. Hedgepeth

712 F. Supp. 2d 1038 · District Court, C.D. California · May 4, 2010

Thus, the California Supreme Court’s denial of Ground One *1058 is neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. Id.; Carey v. … Thus, the California Supreme Court’s denial of Ground Eight was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law.

Hip Hop Beverage Corp. v. Ric Representacoes Importacao E Comercio Ltda.

220 F.R.D. 614 · District Court, C.D. California · Oct 20, 2003

Plaintiff Hip Hop is dually qualified and doing business in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, with its principal place of business in Lake View Terrace, California. (Id.). … This Court cannot find at this time that these asserted claims are “clearly subject to dismissal.”

Tanne v. Autobytel, Inc.

226 F.R.D. 659 · District Court, C.D. California · Mar 15, 2005

Finally, there is no evidence (and no movant has argued) that Kurtz’s action is collusive, and he has retained qualified and competent counsel. … The court also finds that Lim, Ruger & Kim is qualified to play the role of liaison counsel.

John Gregory v. Acrisure, LLC and Benefits MatchMaking, LLC

District Court, C.D. California · Jun 5, 2026

Designations that 10 are shown to be clearly unjustified or that have been made for an improper purpose (e.g., 11 to unnecessarily encumber the case development process or to impose unnecessary 12 expenses … This provision is not intended to 16 modify whatever procedure may be established in an e-discovery order that provides for 17 production without prior privilege review.

Anton Vu v. City of Garden Grove

District Court, C.D. California · Dec 11, 2025

If only a portion or portions of the material on a page 16 qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected 17 portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). … If only a portion or portions of the 27 material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly 1 margins). 2 (b) for

Nehemiah Davidson v. City of Los Angeles; Dennis Eames; James Spellman; Pierre Olega; Sergent Cruz; and Does 1 through 10, inclusive

District Court, C.D. California · Mar 12, 2026

If only a 16 portion of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must 17 clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the 18 margins). … This provision is not intended to modify whatever procedure 19 may be established in an e-discovery order that provides for production without prior 20 privilege review.

JVC Kenwood Corp. v. Arcsoft, Inc.

966 F. Supp. 2d 1003 · District Court, C.D. California · Jul 17, 2013

A claim of patent infringement requires a direct infringer, and JVC, as the plaintiff, has the burden of establishing an underlying act of direct infringement. See, e.g., Akamai Techs., Inc. v. … Supreme Court precedent, however, does not clearly delineate the difference between a conditional sale and an unconditional sale.

Lawrence Reddick v. Officer Campbell, et al.

District Court, C.D. California · Dec 2, 2025

action in which a plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … Known as Monell liability, a plaintiff can establish local government liability in one of three ways.

EIGHT SLEEP INC. v. Orion Longevity Inc. and Blue Fuzion Group Ltd.

District Court, C.D. California · Feb 9, 2026

If only a portion 13 of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly 14 identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the 15 margins … If only a portion of the material on a page qualifies for protection, 27 the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by 1 (b) for testimony given in deposition or in

Loretta Gurrola v. City of Fontana, Fontana Police Department, Police Officer Chad Ebli, Police Officer Nicholas Straka, individually and in their official capacity as police officers with the City of Fontana/Fontana Police Department, Does 8 to 10, individually and in their official capacity as police officers and/or employees of the City of Fontana/Fontana Police Department, Inclusive

District Court, C.D. California · Nov 12, 2025

If only a portion or portions of the material on a page 21 | qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the 22 | protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in … This provision is not intended to modify 5 | whatever procedure may be established in an e-discovery order that provides for 6 | production without prior privilege review.

Credit Suisse Lending Trust USA v. Transamerica Life Insurance Company

District Court, C.D. California · May 5, 2021

If only a portion of the 20 material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly 21 identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the 22 margins). … If only a portion of the material on a page qualifies for 6 protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) 7 (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins).

John Doe v. County of Santa Barbara

District Court, C.D. California · Dec 10, 2024

If only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for 7 protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) 8 (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). … If only a 18 portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing 19 Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making 20 appropriate markings in the margins

Dworkin v. Hustler Magazine, Inc.

668 F. Supp. 1408 · District Court, C.D. California · Aug 25, 1987

The Court emphasized that the choice of law question arises "only after jurisdiction over respqndent is established." Id. 3 . … However, the courts in both Frank and Poly-gram Records made it clear that they were not ruling that comedy is per se immune from a defamation action.