Case law

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.

Jakob Khorsandi 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. … Designating these pharmacists as “qualified person[s]” brings them within the PREP Act’s definition of “covered person[s].”

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.

Contemporary Services Corp. v. Universal City Studios, Inc.

655 F. Supp. 885 · District Court, C.D. California · Mar 2, 1987

A federal claim under RICO would, if sued upon alone, clearly be removable as within a district court’s original jurisdiction as provided by 28 U.S.C. section 1331 . … A California court would be the best qualified to decide this on first impression.

Lauren Slaughter v. Virgin Scent, Inc.

District Court, C.D. California · Mar 25, 2022

If only a portion of the material on a page qualifies for 8 protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) 9 (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). … If only a 19 portion of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also 20 must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings 21 in the margins).

Ostby v. Oxnard Union High

209 F. Supp. 2d 1035 · District Court, C.D. California · Jun 11, 2002

Under the IDEA, educational programs for handicapped children are designed and imple *1037 mented through an IEP, which contains statements of the disabling conditions that qualify the child for special education services … When determining a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the Court should assume the allegations in the Complaint to be true and construe them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and the movant must clearly establish

United States Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Driver

877 F. Supp. 2d 968 · District Court, C.D. California · Jul 5, 2012

To establish liability under either section, the CFTC must establish that Defendants made a material misrepresentation or omission with scienter. Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. R.J. … Driver and Axcess Automation therefore qualify as CPOs.

Lance Williams v. R. Farley

District Court, C.D. California · Aug 10, 2020

not immunize them 6 from claims for prospective relief (such as forward-looking injunctive relief). 7 Kentucky v. … District civil rights complaint form to use for filing the First Amended 26 Complaint, which the Court encourages Plaintiff to use. 27 If Plaintiff chooses to file a First Amended Complaint, he must clearly

Frank Paul Piumetti 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. … Designating these pharmacists as “qualified person[s]” brings them within the PREP Act’s definition of “covered person[s].”

Anne Palamides 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. … Designating these pharmacists as “qualified person[s]” brings them within the PREP Act’s definition of “covered person[s].”

Sascha B. Koch v. City of Los Angeles et al.

District Court, C.D. California · Oct 20, 2025

Id. at 2 (noting that plaintiff's Section 1983 claim depends on whether defendants Brinkman and Towe knowingly violated a “clearly established” right; noting that plaintiff's Bane Act claim depends on whether defendants … Therefore, evidence of plaintiff's gambling activities is relevant to establishing whether defendants had probable cause to effectuate their search of plaintiff's premises.

Hunt v. City of Los Angeles

601 F. Supp. 2d 1158 · District Court, C.D. California · Jan 14, 2009

Hunt Deck ¶ 4. 8 The 2004 ordinance did not clearly prohibit the sale of Hunt’s shea butter. … The ordinance clearly prohibited “lotions” and “oils.”

Mercury Service, Inc. v. Allied Bank of Texas

117 F.R.D. 147 · District Court, C.D. California · Aug 14, 1987

It has no agents or service of process in California and is not authorized, qualified or licensed to do business in California. It does not accept deposits or make loans in California. … It was clearly unethical for in-house counsel Charles Pickett to advise Mr.

Andrew Nguyen v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

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

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

United States v. Zuno-Arce

25 F. Supp. 2d 1087 · District Court, C.D. California · Aug 18, 1998

The case law clearly reflects a judgment that an accused’s right to counsel must end some time. See also Duckett v. … And finally, he received immunity, a $3,000 tax-free monthly stipend for an indeterminate period, relocation to the United States, and an INS work permit.

Moement, Inc. v. Groomore, Inc.

District Court, C.D. California · Oct 10, 2023

If only 27 a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing 28 Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate 1 markings in the margins) … If only a portion or portions of the material on a page 13 qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected 14 portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins).

Gregory Franklin v. R. Franklin

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

does not immunize them 24 from claims for prospective relief (such as forward-looking injunctive relief). 25 Kentucky v. … “Experience teaches that, unless cases are pled clearly and precisely, issues 25 are not joined, discovery is not controlled, the trial court’s docket becomes 26 unmanageable, the litigants suffer, and society loses confidence

Courtney Washington v. Kia America Inc.

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

Except as otherwise provided in this Order, or as otherwise stipulated or ordered, Disclosure or Discovery Material that qualifies for protection under this Order must be clearly so designated before … 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.

Richard Prendez, Jr. v. Superior Court of California Riverside

District Court, C.D. California · Dec 17, 2021

Therefore, none of Petitioner’s postconviction filings in the state courts qualify for statutory tolling. See Laws v. … Petitioner’s claims; (4) Establishes that the Petition is timely.

Lodge Manufacturing Company v. Gibson Overseas, Inc.

District Court, C.D. California · Sep 4, 2019

10 Order must be clearly so designated before the material is disclosed or produced. 11 Designation in conformity with this Order requires: 12 (a) for information in documentary form … of privilege or other protection, the obligations of the 3 Receiving Parties are those set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(B). 4 This provision is not intended to modify whatever procedure may be established