Case law

In Re DirecTV Early Cancellation Litigation

738 F. Supp. 2d 1062 · District Court, C.D. California · Sep 7, 2010

Clearly, it was. Finally, there are no “indices of unfairness” that advise against granting preclusive effect to the Ninth Circuit’s Order. Id. … To qualify as a preauthorized transfer and trigger the requirements of the EFTA, the transfer must be one that is authorized to “recur.”

Fahren James v. City of South Pasadena

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

If only a portion or portions of the material on a page 24 qualifies 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 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 in the margins

Jing Xu v. City of Los Angeles

District Court, C.D. California · Dec 20, 2023

If only a 6 portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party 7 also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings 8 in the margins). … This provision is not intended to modify whatever procedure may be 8 established in an e-discovery order that provides for production without prior privilege 9 review.

Softman Products Co., LLC v. Adobe Systems, Inc.

171 F. Supp. 2d 1075 · District Court, C.D. California · Oct 19, 2001

Course of dealing and trade usage may be relevant, since they establish the expectations and intent of the parties. … Section 43(a) protects qualifying registered trademarks. Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763, 768 , 112 S.Ct. 2753 , 120 L.Ed.2d 615 (1992).

Carolyn Tracie Love v. Los Angeles County

District Court, C.D. California · Jun 21, 2023

If only a 16 portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing 17 Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate 18 markings in the margins … This provision is not intended to modify whatever procedure 3 may be established in an e-discovery order that provides for production without prior 4 privilege review.

Torey Costello v. City of Los Angeles

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

If only a portion of the material on a page qualifies for 18 protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) 19 (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). … This provision is not intended to modify 11 whatever procedure may be established in an e-discovery order that provides for 12 production without prior privilege review.

Campos v. Astrue

656 F. Supp. 2d 1179 · District Court, C.D. California · Aug 24, 2009

Sequential Evaluation Process To qualify for disability benefits, a claimant must show that she is unable to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of a medically determinable physical or mental impairment which … The Ninth Circuit came to this conclusion for three reasons: (1) the claimant had implicitly raised the issue of obesity in her report of symptoms; (2) the record clearly showed that the claimant’s obesity was at least close

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.

EVO Brands, LLC v. Al Khalifa Group LLC

District Court, C.D. California · Oct 24, 2022

Designations 14 that are shown to be clearly unjustified or that have been made for an improper 15 purpose (e.g., to unnecessarily encumber the case development process or to impose 16 unnecessary expenses and burdens … This provision is not intended to modify whatever procedure 11 may be established in an e-discovery order that provides for production without

Karl Augustus v. City of Los Angeles

District Court, C.D. California · Aug 4, 2022

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

Leonardo Antolin v. Walmart Inc.

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

If only a portion or portions of the material on a page 26 qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected 27 portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins … If only a 9 portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing 10 Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making 11 appropriate markings in the

TPS Utilicom Services, Inc. v. AT & T CORP.

223 F. Supp. 2d 1089 · District Court, C.D. California · Aug 21, 2002

The Plaintiff admits that the gravamen of the complaint is the allegation that ANW, with its partial-AT & T ownership, did not qualify to participate as a designated entity in the relevant auctions. … Laulo-Rowe Agency, 994 F.2d 666, 668 (9th Cir.l993)(“The test is whether Congress clearly manifested an intent to convert state law claims into federal-question claims.”).

Intelligent Computer Solutions, Inc. v. Voom Technologies, Inc.

509 F. Supp. 2d 847 · District Court, C.D. California · Sep 18, 2006

Defendant responds that the patentee has not sufficiently defined the term at issue to qualify as his own lexicographer. … Here, Plaintiff has successfully established the meaning of “memory buffer” by implication.

California Ex Rel. Lockyer v. Safeway, Inc.

355 F. Supp. 2d 1111 · District Court, C.D. California · Jan 28, 2005

With the parties’ agreement, we bifurcated the case in order to permit Defendants to litigate first whether the MSAA is immunized from antitrust attack by the non-statutory labor exemption. … While the fact that the Employers intend to engage in revenue sharing to combat whipsawing could clearly be useful to the unions in deciding whether to selectively picket Employers or otherwise subject them to disparate economic

Saulic v. Symantec Corp.

596 F. Supp. 2d 1323 · District Court, C.D. California · Jan 5, 2009

The degree of proof necessary to establish standing differs at various stages of the proceedings. … This evidence suffices to establish Symantec as a proper party. B.

S and B Filters, Inc. v. ETN Capital, LLC

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

Mass, indiscriminate, or routinized designations are prohibited. 8 Designations that are shown to be clearly unjustified or that have been 9 … This provision is not intended to modify 18 whatever procedure may be established in an e-discovery order that provides for 19 production without

Vinh Nguyen v. Radient Pharmaceuticals Corp.

287 F.R.D. 563 · District Court, C.D. California · Nov 26, 2012

That amount clearly satisfies a common sense presumption that there are enough class members to make joinder impracticable. See, e.g., In re Unioil Sec. … At the time of Cammer , "companies could qualify to use the S-3 Registration Form only if they had filed SEC reports continuously for thirty-six months and had at least $150 million in float.” Krogman v.

Brenda Cornejo v. Lowes Home Centers, LLC

District Court, C.D. California · Oct 27, 2022

The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as 10 CONFIDENTIAL does not—without the submission of competent evidence by 11 declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed … Except as otherwise provided in this Order, or 27 as otherwise stipulated or ordered, Disclosure or Discovery Material that qualifies for 28 protection under this Order must be clearly so designated before

I.M. v. State of California

District Court, C.D. California · May 27, 2022

If only a portion of the material on a page qualifies 27 for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected 28 portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). … If only a portion of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the 11 Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s), e.g., by 12 making appropriate markings in the margins.

Marcus Linthecome v. Robert Luna

District Court, C.D. California · Jun 30, 2025

Plaintiff, 4 however, alleged that he should qualify for IFP status under the “imminent 5 danger” exception of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). … When a complaint 7 clearly does not state a claim upon which the court can grant relief, a court 8 may dismiss the case on its own, at the outset, without leave to amend. See 9 Reed v.