Case law

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

In Re Debtor Lev Investments, LLC

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

“For a proof of claim to have prima facie validity, it must comply with the rules and set forth all the necessary facts to establish the claim.” Id. … Thus, the decision of the bankruptcy court to disallow [Appellants’] claim in full was not clearly erroneous.”).

K-Lath, Division of Tree Island Wire (USA), Inc. v. Davis Wire Corp.

15 F. Supp. 2d 952 · District Court, C.D. California · Aug 10, 1998

The Federal Circuit and Supreme Court clearly require the enforcement or assertion of the patent as an element necessary to establish antitrust liability. … Cygnus held that the court should apply the law of the regional circuit in which the district court sits to determine whether a patentee’s "conduct in procuring or enforcing a patent is sufficient to strip a patentee of its immunity

Benjamin Woodhouse v. The United States Government

District Court, C.D. California · Jun 22, 2022

Moreover, on March 2, 2022, on the basis of judicial immunity or qualified immunity, respectively, the Court dismissed the case as to individual defendants the Hon. Stanley Blumenfeld Jr., the Hon. R. … Additionally, plaintiff fails to explain how its conclusory and conspiratorial allegations against Alphabet qualify as racketeering activity. See Block v. Snohomish Cnty., 733 F.

Synergy Hematology-Oncology Medical Associates, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc.

District Court, C.D. California · Jul 13, 2022

Except as otherwise provided in 2 this Order, or as otherwise stipulated or ordered, Disclosure of Discovery Material 3 that qualifies for protection under this Order must be clearly so designated before 4 the material … If only a portion of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the 12 Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making 13 appropriate markings in the margins).

Sharrod Moten v. Pedro Pulido

District Court, C.D. California · Aug 17, 2022

These falsified documents were also created to 14 establish a reason to justifiably place plaintiff in administrative segregation” (id. at 5). … Each claim plaintiff alleges must clearly set forth which defendant(s) is alleged to be responsible for the alleged violation, and clearly and 15 || concisely reference the factual allegations that are relevant to

Jinhui Kim v. Walmart, Inc.

District Court, C.D. California · Apr 19, 2023

Mass, indiscriminate, or routinized designations are prohibited. 9 Designations that are shown to be clearly unjustified or that have been 10 made for an improper purpose (e.g., to unnecessarily … The parties agree that narrowly tailored redactions are 7 appropriate for information that is privileged or protected from discovery as work 8 product or by reason of any other applicable privilege or immunity.

Gonzales v. LLOYDS TXB BANK, PLC

532 F. Supp. 2d 1200 · District Court, C.D. California · Jun 7, 2006

A “wire communication need not be fraudulent on its face in order to constitute an act of mail or wire fraud; even innocuous communications can qualify for this purpose so long as they are incident to an essential part of … Although a claim for fraud can be based on either an affirmative misrepresentation or deceitful concealment of fact, Plaintiffs must still clearly allege which type of conduct it asserts. 7 .

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Michael M. Beck

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

If only a portion of the material on a page qualifies for 15 protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) 16 (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). … If only a portion of the 26 material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly 27 identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the 1 (b) for testimony

Alfen v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A.

284 F.R.D. 485 · District Court, C.D. California · Jun 11, 2012

As their Declarations and curricula vitae indicate, both experts are clearly qualified by virtue of their knowledge and experience. (See Supp’l Mahon Deck (MDL Docket No. 2331-2 to -3) ¶ 4 & Ex. … To the extent that the evidence at trial, or otherwise, establishes a causal link between the condition of the throttle body valve and the accident, the Court will reevaluate the appropriate level of evidentiary sanctions

Federal Trade Commission v. John Beck Amazing Profits, LLC

865 F. Supp. 2d 1052 · District Court, C.D. California · Apr 20, 2012

A routine deception case such as the case at bar qualifies as a “proper case.” FTC v. H.N. … Status as a corporate officer is sufficient to establish individual liability.

Antoinette Hanson v. Trans Union, LLC, et al.

District Court, C.D. California · Jul 18, 2024

To establish federal question jurisdiction, the complaint must establish “either that [1] federal law creates the cause of action or that [2] the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial … cannot provide the original jurisdiction that petitioners must show in order to qualify for removal under § 1441.” Syngenta, 537 U.S. at 34.

David Arnold v. City of Redondo Beach

District Court, C.D. California · Nov 25, 2019

The parties bear the burden to lay 13 out their support clearly. Carmen v. S.F. Unified Sch. … The employer bears the 3 burden of establishing that it qualifies for the exemption. Adair, 185 F.3d at 1060. 4 “Whether an employer meets this burden is normally a question of fact.”

ScripsAmerica, Inc. v. Ironridge Global LLC

119 F. Supp. 3d 1213 · District Court, C.D. California · Aug 11, 2015

See Tellabs, 551 U.S. at 314 , 127 S.Ct. 2499 ; IXIA, 50 F.Supp.3d at 1352 (“To qualify as ‘strong’ within the intendment of ... the PSLRA ... an inference of scienter must be more than merely plausible or reasonable — it … A complaint relying on the statements of confidential witnesses to establish scienter (1) must describe the confidential witnesses with sufficient particularity to establish their reliability and knowledge, and (2) must plead

MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.

535 F. Supp. 2d 1000 · District Court, C.D. California · Feb 7, 2008

While Med-Immune does not contest the basic framework provided by Benitec Australia, Ltd. v. Nucleonics, Inc., 495 F.3d 1340 (Fed.Cir.2007), and Super Sack Mfg. Corp. v. … (citing principle established in Jervis B. Webb Co. v. Southern Systems Inc. 742 F.2d 1388 , 1399 & n. 8 (Fed.Cir.1984)).

Legendary Transport, LLC v. JPMorgan Chase & Co.

District Court, C.D. California · Apr 24, 2020

DISCUSSION 16 Legendary seeks an order directing Defendants to accept PPP loan applications 17 from all qualifying applicants and cease their alleged practice of limiting applicants to … As Legendary fails to do so here, it has not 12 || established that it is entitled to a TRO.

Julia Rimes v. Claire's Stores Inc.

District Court, C.D. California · Jun 1, 2022

Except as otherwise provided in this 20 Order, or as otherwise stipulated or ordered, Disclosure of Discovery Material that 21 qualifies for protection under this Order must be clearly so designated before … If only a portion of the material on a page qualifies 12 for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) 13 (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins).

Breathe Technologies, Inc. v. Inogen, Inc.

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

If only a portion 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), to the extent 9 … If only a portion of the material on a page 23 qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected 24

United States v. Afshari

635 F. Supp. 2d 1110 · District Court, C.D. California · Apr 14, 2009

determine if the court finds the Secretary of State’s designation to be— (A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (B) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity … This is so because “one to whose conduct a statute clearly applies may not successfully challenge it for vagueness.” Parker v.

Nixon-Egli Equipment Co. v. John A. Alexander Co.

949 F. Supp. 1435 · District Court, C.D. California · Aug 13, 1996

. § 6972 (a)(1)(B) The defendants argued that the language clearly referred to currently existing threats, not those which had already been remedied. … To establish the fact of future damages, there must be evidence that a reasonable probability exists that harm will occur in the future.