Case law

Lockheed Air Terminal, Inc. v. City of Burbank

318 F. Supp. 914 · District Court, C.D. California · Sep 24, 1970

The Court concluded that the mere possession of a Federal license did not immunize the ship from the operation of the normal incidents of police power, not constituting a direct regulation of commerce. … He said that international departures fall off abruptly after 10:00 P.M. and clearly it would not be in the public interest, considering resultant noise disturbances, to encourage scheduling of more flights at later hours

Iowa Pork Producers Association v. Rob Bonta

District Court, C.D. California · Feb 28, 2022

to bring a Privileges and Immunities claim on their behalf. … However, even if Iowa Pork can establish associational standing on behalf of its members who are individuals, it still cannot plausibly state a Privileges and Immunities claim because Proposition 12 applies equally to all

Trevor Bauer v. Lindsey C. Hill

District Court, C.D. California · Sep 12, 2022

If only a 25 portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing 26 Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate 27 markings in the margins … If only a portion or portions of the 10 material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly 11 identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the

Jorge Castillo v. City of Los Angeles

District Court, C.D. California · Dec 19, 2019

If only a 23 portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing 24 Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate 25 markings in the margins … If only a portion or portions of the material 7 on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the 8 protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). 9

Miguel Marin v. AT and T Mobility Services LLC

District Court, C.D. California · Aug 24, 2023

If only a portion or portions of the 24 material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party 25 also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by 26 … If only a portion or portions of the material on a page 12 qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly 13 identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate

Jose Portillo v. Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc.

District Court, C.D. California · Dec 2, 2019

If only a portion or portions of the material on a page 15 qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected 16 portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). … This provision is not intended to modify 26 whatever procedure may be established in an e-discovery order that provides for 27 production without prior privilege review.

Jamshid Naebzadeh v. American Express National Bank

District Court, C.D. California · Jun 12, 2023

If only a portion or portions of the material on 1 a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the 2 protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). 3 … If only a portion or portions of the material on 15 a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the 16 protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). 17

The Sliding Door Company v. KNR Sliding Door Design, LLC

District Court, C.D. California · Apr 6, 2021

If only a 9 portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party 10 also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings 11 in the margins). … If only a portion or portions of the material on a page 22 qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected 23 portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins).

Arovast Corporation v. Okaysou Corporation

District Court, C.D. California · Sep 12, 2022

If only a portion or portions 13 of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must 14 clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the 15 margins … This provision is not intended to modify whatever 16 procedure may be established in an e-discovery order that provides for production 17 without prior privilege review.

BSB Industries, LLC v. Fasthouse, Inc.

District Court, C.D. California · Dec 1, 2020

If only a portion or portions of 11 the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly 12 identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins) 13 … If only 24 a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing 25 Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate 26 markings in the margins

Hector Portaluppi v. FortiFi Financial, Inc.

District Court, C.D. California · May 5, 2022

If only a 10 portion of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must 11 clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the 12 margins). … If only a portion of the material on a page qualifies for 22 protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., 23 by making appropriate markings in the margins).

Dane Russell v. UL LLC

District Court, C.D. California · Sep 30, 2022

If only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, 23 the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making 24 appropriate markings in the margins). … If only a portion or portions of the 9 material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify 10 the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). 11

Henry v. Warner

357 F. Supp. 495 · District Court, C.D. California · Apr 13, 1973

The need for an order of such scope is clearly apparent, in view of the fact that the Navy and Marine Corps have chosen not to apply the rulings of Argersinger and Daigle to every person under their authority, but only in … I find it unnecessary to reach the issue of whether Respondents should be designated a class in order to qualify the designated class of Petitioners for said requested relief.

ALO, LLC v. Italic, Inc.

District Court, C.D. California · Apr 20, 2022

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

Black v. Ritz-Carlton Hotel Co.

977 F. Supp. 2d 996 · District Court, C.D. California · Oct 10, 2013

Defendants argue that a Restated Operating Agreement (“ROA”) between RC Bermuda and MSAS clearly states that as of July 1, 2004, RC Bermuda would be the sole operator and controller of the hotel at RC Dubai. Mot. … Here, RC Delaware’s maintaining and operating several hotels in California qualifies as “continuous and systematic” contact with the forum state, therefore general personal jurisdiction can be established over Defendant RC

Perez v. General Packer, Inc.

790 F. Supp. 1464 · District Court, C.D. California · Apr 22, 1992

The Zogbi court reasoned, first, that as a general rule, a qualifying phrase only modifies that which immediately precedes it. Id. at 1039 . … The Horn court reasoned: ... it is well-established policy that removal statutes are to be strictly construed against removal. Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v.

Elijah McKinley v. City of Los Angeles

District Court, C.D. California · Dec 5, 2023

If only a portion or portions of the material on a page 2 qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly 3 identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate … If only a portion or portions of the material on a page 17 qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly 18 identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate

Craig Cunningham v. GHS Interactive Security, LLC

District Court, C.D. California · Jun 30, 2020

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 25 material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly 26 identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the 27 margins).

UCC Manufacturing, LLC v. Research and Results Engineering, Inc.

District Court, C.D. California · Sep 12, 2019

If only a 10 portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party 11 also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings 12 in the margins … If only a portion or portions of the material on a page 22 qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected 23 portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins).

Lisa D. Smith v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.

District Court, C.D. California · Sep 13, 2021

If only a 3 portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing 4 Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate 5 markings in the margins … If only a portion or portions 15 of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly 16 identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the