Case law

Koron Lekeith Lowe v. County of Riverside

District Court, C.D. California · May 17, 2024

If only a portion or portions of the material on a page 18 qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected 19 portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). … Then, 27 before producing the specified documents, the Producing Party must affix the 1 portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing 2 Party also must clearly identify the protected

Shannon Slocum v. JPMorgan Chase Bank

District Court, C.D. California · Sep 16, 2019

must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings 6 in the margins). … This provision is not intended to modify 9 whatever procedure may be established in an e-discovery order that provides for 10

Bureerong v. Uvawas

922 F. Supp. 1450 · District Court, C.D. California · Mar 21, 1996

The definition has “striking breadth” and “stretches the meaning of ‘employee’ to cover some parties who might not qualify as such under a strict application of traditional agency law principles.” … As to several of these "operator” Defendants, many of these allegations have been conclusively established. In United States v.

Barbara Lebow v. Silverado Senior Living, Inc.

District Court, C.D. California · Sep 14, 2021

The removing party has the burden to establish that it was proper to do so. Id. … If the Secretary of HHS has made such a determination, the PREP Act provides that a covered person shall be immune from suit and liability under Federal and State

Daniel S. Luna v. Avalos

District Court, C.D. California · Feb 4, 2020

A showing of medical malpractice or negligence is insufficient to establish a constitutional deprivation under the Eighth Amendment.”). … P. 10(b); (f) set forth clearly the sequence of events giving rise to the claims for relief; and (g) allege with sufficient specificity what each defendant did and how that individual’s conduct violated Plaintiff’s civil

Felipe Gonzalez v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank

District Court, C.D. California · Jan 9, 2020

—clearly stands for the opposite proposition. Daniell, 206 Cal. … To maintain a claim pursuant to § 1983, a plaintiff must establish: (1) 26 the deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution or 27 federal law, (2) by a person acting under the color of

NICOR, Inc. v. SourceBlue, LLC

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

If only a portion or portions of the 7 material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly 8 … If only a portion or portions of the material on a page 21 qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected

Lightenburger v. United States

298 F. Supp. 813 · District Court, C.D. California · Apr 21, 1969

Carrington Carpet Company was an established furniture business in Las Vegas, Nevada, at the time it contracted to employ Lightenburger. … “Q Do you have an opinion as a pilot as to -whether or not it is the type of a turn which would be made by a pilot who was duly qualified to fly instruments? “A No, it certainly would not be.

In re Air Crash at Madrid

893 F. Supp. 2d 1020 · District Court, C.D. California · Mar 22, 2011

Spanair would then be able to sue other joint tortfeasors to establish their joint and several liability. … is not authenticated, (4) Alvarez is not qualified as an expert in Spanish law, and (5) it is based on incomplete facts and assumptions contrary to fact.

A.J. P. v. County of San Bernardino

District Court, C.D. California · Jan 18, 2023

Except as otherwise provided in 4 this Order, or as otherwise stipulated or ordered, material that qualifies for protection 5 under this Order must be clearly so designated before the material is disclosed or 6 produced … If only a portion 12 or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also 13 must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings 14 in the margins

German Esparza v. Ken Clark

District Court, C.D. California · May 9, 2022

Therefore, none of Petitioner’s postconviction filings in the state courts would qualify for statutory tolling in any case. See Laws v. … A federal habeas court is bound by, and may not revisit, state court interpretations of state law, including the state courts’ determination here that Petitioner does not qualify for resentencing under the provisions of

PlayMedia Systems, Inc. v. America Online, Inc.

171 F. Supp. 2d 1094 · District Court, C.D. California · Oct 25, 2001

AOL’s assertion that its Media Player incorporates a “nearly identical” version of WINAMP 2.6.2 clearly is incorrect. … The basis for this figure is not clearly established, however, and PlayMedia objects to this evidence as lacking foundation.

Monserrat Lopez v. Adidas America, Inc.

District Court, C.D. California · Apr 23, 2021

Except as otherwise provided in this 26 || Order or as otherwise stipulated or ordered, Disclosure or Discovery Material that 27 || qualifies for protection under this Order must be clearly so designated … If only a portion or portions of the material 18 || on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the 19 || protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins

Goldstein v. City of Long Beach

603 F. Supp. 2d 1242 · District Court, C.D. California · Feb 27, 2009

month ago, the United States Supreme Court held that two of the named defendants, former Los Angeles County District Attorney John Van de Kamp and his then-Chief Deputy, Curt Livesay, are entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity … Silva, 745 F.2d 840, 845 (4th Cir.1984) the Fourth Circuit stated that Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) “clearly” is “the governing standard” regarding the production of state grand jury testimony in federal court.

Rosen v. Masterpiece Marketing Group, LLC

222 F. Supp. 3d 793 · District Court, C.D. California · Mar 1, 2016

(holding that the defendant’s use of the term “alternative methods” of accessibility qualified as a recitation of the phrase “equivalent facilitation” such that it gave the plaintiff fair notice of the invocation of the defense … Plaintiff replies that this argument is not relevant to his infringement claims and that it does not clearly indicate how any statute of limitations has been violated. (Reply 6.)

Renee Maxwell v. American Airlines, Inc.

District Court, C.D. California · Mar 3, 2023

Except as otherwise provided in this 25 Order or as otherwise stipulated or ordered, Disclosure or Discovery Material that 26 qualifies for protection under this Order must be clearly so designated before the … If only a portion or portions of the material on a page 7 qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected 8 portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins

Securities & Exchange Commission v. Cross Financial Services, Inc.

908 F. Supp. 718 · District Court, C.D. California · Sep 5, 1995

Under the Howey three-prong test, then, the CFS notes also qualify as “securities” because they may be characterized as “investment contracts.” C. … The court noted the “clearly established legal principles that control here,” including the fact that the SEC had standing to obtain the equitable remedies of disgorgement and constructive trust based on “its duty to advance

Edward Asner v. The Sag-Aftra Health Fund

District Court, C.D. California · Aug 30, 2021

like character and with like aims; (C) by diversifying the investments of the plan so as to minimize the risk of large losses, unless under the circumstances it is clearly … “[S]ettlor functions” are generally immune from ERISA’s fiduciary obligations. Id. 10 The settlor-fiduciary distinction applies to decisions by trustees of both single employer and multiemployer plans.

Armida Rivera v. Vishay Americas, Inc.

District Court, C.D. California · Oct 12, 2021

The burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of 9 material fact lies with the moving party. Celotex Corp. v. … Vishay does briefly dispute, however, whether stress and anxiety 14 qualify as a disability under FEHA.

Roderick Garcia v. City of Azusa

District Court, C.D. California · Sep 21, 2022

Except as otherwise provided in SF 13 || this Order, or as otherwise stipulated or ordered, material that qualifies for protection Z 2 under this Order must be clearly so designated before the material … If only a portion 21 || or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also 22 || must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings