Case law

Jose Ordaz v. McLane/Suneast, Inc.

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

as eligible materials for the 7 Court’s consideration, the Court is skeptical that they would establish 8 unequivocally that the case was removable. … Nov. 5, 2015) 9 (noting that a “declaration from a person with knowledge of the relevant data is 10 clearly an appropriate form of evidence”). 11 The Court also finds it reasonable for

Student, F.C. v. Irvine Unified School District

District Court, C.D. California · Jan 27, 2025

Irvine Unified School District The record does not establish that District knew or should have known that Student was a child with a disability. … Lastly, Plaintiffs do not point to evidence in the record that establishes Student required a special education plan or related services.

City of Los Angeles v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture

950 F. Supp. 1005 · District Court, C.D. California · Dec 23, 1996

Although the court has declined to find that Edison’s environmental injuries are a mere pretext, the evidence noted above clearly shows that Edison’s interests in this claim are primarily economic. … Due to Edison’s extreme economic conflict with litigation in the public interest, Edison does not qualify as a “reliable private attorney general.”

Anthony D. Natty v. Administrator of Thrift Saving Plans and or Legal Department (Does)

District Court, C.D. California · Jun 5, 2023

Summary judgment must be granted for the moving party if the nonmoving party “fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear … Thus, while TSP beneficiaries may sue to recover benefits or to clarify rights to benefits under FERSA, the statute “contains no explicit waiver of the government’s sovereign immunity to money damages, and, in fact, money

Glendale Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Fox

481 F. Supp. 616 · District Court, C.D. California · Oct 17, 1979

The court examined the Supreme Court’s opinion in Wycoff, writing: “The principle concern of the [Wycoff ] Court was the nature of the controversy presented, 344 U.S. at 244 , 73 S.Ct. at 240: ‘A multitude of rights and immunities … C 147 921, as the pending action to which Glendale Federal seeks to establish a defense. 17 . This court remanded People v.

BOAGF Holdco LP v. Transamerica Life Insurance Company

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

designation 17 of Disclosure or Discovery Material as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY 18 CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” does not—without the 19 submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing … If only a portion or portions of the material on a page 17 qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected 18 portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins).

Bigfoot Ventures, LTD v. Mark S. Knighton

District Court, C.D. California · Jun 18, 2025

Clearly, the Court must have original federal jurisdiction over an action before it may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims. See Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. … Thus, Defendants do not establish federal question jurisdiction under the Gunn test.

Marisa Martinez v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc.

District Court, C.D. California · Mar 27, 2020

“[A] defendant cannot establish removal jurisdiction by mere speculation and conjecture, with unreasonable assumptions.” Ibarra v. … In her Complaint, Plaintiff has defined her desired class as a class of California residents consisting of “all persons with qualified mobility disabilities who have attempted, or will attempt, to access the interior of any

Diamond Erica Pace, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Keolis Transit America, Inc.; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive

District Court, C.D. California · Nov 12, 2025

“The removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction” and “[t]he defendant bears the burden of establishing that removal is proper.” Provincial Gov’t of Marinduque v. … See Kuxhausen, 707 F.3d at 1140 (finding “multiplying figures clearly stated in a complaint” is within the defendant’s duty to ascertain removability).

Troy R. Stroud v. United States

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

Defense counsel’s strategic decision to accept the proposed recommendation does not qualify as objectively unreasonable under Strickland. … Counsel’s efforts to persuade this Court to impose a low-end sentence pursuant to the joint recommendation were more than adequate to qualify as reasonably effective.

Alonzo McKinney v. Unknown

District Court, C.D. California · May 16, 2022

Indeed, this Court has previously informed Petitioner that court clerks are “entitled to immunity from damages for civil rights violations for tasks that are integral to the judicial process.” (Alonzo McKinney v. … Chappell, 793 F.3d 1159, 1165 (9th Cir. 2015) (claims for which the factual predicate existed at the time of the first habeas petition qualify as second or successive).

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster Ltd.

454 F. Supp. 2d 966 · District Court, C.D. California · Sep 27, 2006

“When a court is evaluating whether such a foundation has been established, ‘[t]he contents of the statement shall be considered but are not alone sufficient to establish ... the agency or employment relationship and scope … The record clearly indicates that Schaffer was an agent of StreamCast.

Marvin L. Stewart v. David Shulkin

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

The parties bear the obligation to lay out 28 their support clearly. Carmen v. S.F. Unified Sch. Dist., 237 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2001). … The AJ therefore found that Stewart was unable to 4 establish that he was not selected because of his age.

Securities and Exchange Commission v. SHE Beverage Company, Inc.

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

If only a portion or portions of the material 9 on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly 10 identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in 11 … If only a portion or portions of 21 the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly 22 identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the 23 margins

Genaro Juarez v. Calmet Services, Inc.

District Court, C.D. California · Dec 7, 2021

“The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction is on the party seeking removal, and the removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction.” Prize Frize, Inc. v. Matrix (U.S.) … Clearly, § 301 does not grant the parties to a collective-bargaining agreement the ability to contract for what is illegal under state law.

Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Commission v. National Football League

89 F.R.D. 497 · District Court, C.D. California · Mar 17, 1981

Other highly emotional press stories suggested a “pattern of deep and bitter prejudice” in the community, a pattern which was clearly reflected in the voir dire record. … Ferreboeuf, 632 F.2d 832, 834 (9th Cir. 1980), the court again quoted the following standard of review established in United States v.

Western Watersheds Project v. Salazar

993 F. Supp. 2d 1126 · District Court, C.D. California · Nov 5, 2012

Connor’s declaration does not establish that he is competent to provide expert testimony on this issue. See Fed.R.Evid. 702. … City of New York, 414 F.3d 381 , 399 n. 13 (2d Cir.2005) (”[B]ecause a witness qualifies as an expert with respect to certain matters or areas of knowledge, it by no means follows that he or she is qualified to express expert

Andrew L Kicking Horse McCarter v. Erica Lake

District Court, C.D. California · Mar 19, 2020

Palmer, 5 753 F.3d 890, 894 (9th Cir. 2014) (“It is well established that we may take judicial 6 notice of judicial proceedings in other courts.”). 7 Following careful review of the Complaint, … None of these allegations is clearly relevant to the federal civil rights 10 claims that plaintiff appears to be raising in this action.

In Re: Silverado Senior Living, Inc

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

Designating these pharmacists as “qualified person[s]” brings them within the PREP Act’s definition of “covered person[s].” … Defendants argue that Kenneth has not established that he is Decedent’s successor in interest. Dkt. 1 ¶ 7.

Hoffman v. Blattner Energy, Inc.

315 F.R.D. 324 · District Court, C.D. California · Jun 15, 2016

Thus, Hoffman has satisfied the burden of establishing typicality. d. … But as discussed in the previous section, a formal policy that facially complies with the law does not immunize an employer from *344 allegations that a contrary and uniform informal policy or practice exists.