Case law

West American Insurance Company v. Shaghal LTD.

District Court, C.D. California · Jun 2, 2022

If 19 only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the 20 Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) by, for example, 21 making appropriate markings in the … 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

Maria Del Carmen Flores v. City of Santa Monica

District Court, C.D. California · Mar 17, 2023

If only a portion or portions of the material on a page 25 || qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected 26 || portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the … If only a 8 || portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing 9 || Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate 10 || markings

Lilly D. Hill v. Nissan North America, Inc.

District Court, C.D. California · Jun 20, 2024

The statute requires a defendant to apply a reasonable amount of intelligence in ascertaining removability; multiplying or adding figures clearly stated in a complaint is an aspect of that duty. See Kuxhausen v. … “A defendant seeking removal has the burden to establish that removal is proper and any doubt is resolved against removability.” Luther, 533 F.3d at 1034; see also Moore-Thomas v.

Edward Licon v. Konica Minolta Business Solutions USA, Inc.

District Court, C.D. California · Jan 18, 2022

If only a portion or portions of 10 the 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 12 margins … 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 25 appropriate markings in the

Smith v. the James Irvine Foundation

277 F. Supp. 774 · District Court, C.D. California · Dec 18, 1967

Its capital stock consisted of 1,000 shares of common stock, all of which, except qualifying shares, were issued to him. He owned the qualifying shares by endorsement. … Later in his deposition and at the trial he qualified his testimony as to that matter.

United States v. Phillips Petroleum Company

367 F. Supp. 1226 · District Court, C.D. California · Nov 13, 1973

If a company clearly has a strong desire to enter a given market, for whatever reason or even in the absence of a discernible reason, it is sufficient by itself to establish motivation. … Here, however, the evidence clearly establishes the .feasibility and likelihood of unilateral entry by Phillips into the California motor gasoline market.

MZ Audio Sciences, LLC v. Sony Group Corporation Japan

District Court, C.D. California · Oct 14, 2022

If only 8 a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing 9 Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate 10 markings in the margins … If only a portion or portions of the material on a page 23 qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected 24 portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins) and

Keiron Elias v. A. Lichinov

District Court, C.D. California · Sep 10, 2021

plaintiff’s state law claims. 3 In the Objections, plaintiff contends that he has adequately stated a First 4 Amendment free exercise claim based on the “lowered standard” that he personally 5 established … List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) (“The Nevada Department of Prisons, as a state agency, clearly was immune from suit under the Eleventh 20 Amendment”) (citations omitted).

Blackhawk Manufacturing Group Inc. v. Tactical Gear Heads LLC

District Court, C.D. California · Oct 21, 2019

Except as otherwise provided 27 in this Order, or as otherwise stipulated or ordered, Disclosure of Discovery 1 Material that qualifies for protection under this Order must be clearly so 2 designated before … If only a portion of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the 22 Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by 23 making appropriate markings in the margins).

Gerald R. Steik, Jr. v. City of Redondo Beach

District Court, C.D. California · Apr 7, 2025

A Section 1983 plaintiff must 8 || establish both causation-in-fact and proximate (i.e., legal) causation. See Harper 9 || v. City of Los Angeles, 533 F.3d 1010, 1026 (9th Cir. 2008). … That is, the 20 || plaintiff must establish an affirmative causal link between the policy at issue and 21 | the alleged constitutional violation. See City of Canton, Ohio v.

El Rescate Legal Services, Inc. v. Executive Office for Immigration Review

727 F. Supp. 557 · District Court, C.D. California · Dec 14, 1989

applicant of the nature and purpose of the hearing; advise him of the privilege of being represented by an attorney of his own choice at no expense to the Government, and of the availability of free legal services programs qualified … Despite the essential discretionary power of the Immigration officials in dealing with violations of the crewman provision ... it would seem clearly not within the Service’s discretion to conduct an official inquiry, without

Anastasia Martinez v. County of Los Angeles

District Court, C.D. California · Jan 9, 2023

If only a portion 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 margins … This provision is not intended to modify whatever procedure may be established in an e-discovery order that provides for production without prior privilege review.

Navajo Freight Lines, Inc. v. United States

263 F. Supp. 438 · District Court, C.D. California · Jan 17, 1967

The first change is clearly directed at the abuses noted by the defendants. … The other new matter seems clearly designed to prevent future abuses.

Jeanne Rodriguez v. County of San Bernardino

District Court, C.D. California · Mar 8, 2023

If only a portion or portions of the 13 material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly 14 identify the protected portions) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). 15 … This provision is not intended to modify whatever procedure 12 may be established in an e-discovery order that provides for production without prior 13 privilege review.

Jennifer Gerrie v. County of San Bernardino

District Court, C.D. California · Oct 22, 2020

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

Kelli Ewen v. National Hockey League

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

If only a portion of the material on a page qualifies for 4 protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) 5 (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). … If only a 15 portion of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also 16 must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings 17 in the margins).

Kenneth Rothschild Trust v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter

199 F. Supp. 2d 993 · District Court, C.D. California · Mar 27, 2002

In the present case, three of these requirements are clearly met on the face of the complaint. … Thus, even if they were “securities,” they would not qualify as “covered” securities for SLUSA purposes.

Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Moral Majority, Inc.

606 F. Supp. 1526 · District Court, C.D. California · Apr 23, 1985

According to Hustler, however, the “ad” was clearly a parody and so obvious a one that there was nothing to “rebut.” … The only question, therefore, is whether defendants have established any valid defense as a matter of law.

Antonio Lopez v. City of Anaheim

District Court, C.D. California · Dec 8, 2022

If only a portion or portions of the material on a page 2 12 qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected Bes 13 portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in … If only a portion or portions of 23 the 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

Meguerditchian v. Aetna Life Insurance

999 F. Supp. 2d 1180 · District Court, C.D. California · Feb 21, 2014

The Court does not substitute its own judgment for that of the administrator unless the administrator (1) renders a decision without explanation, (2) relies on clearly erroneous findings of fact, or (3) construes provisions … A time limitation in which a beneficiary must report a claim qualifies as a circumstance “which may result in disqualification, ineligibility, or denial or loss of benefits.” § 1022(b); see Dodson v.