Case law

League of United Latin American Citizens v. Wilson

908 F. Supp. 755 · District Court, C.D. California · Nov 20, 1995

Initiatives “must be upheld unless their unconstitutionality clearly, positively, and unmistakably appears.” Id. … Federal grants are made to qualified state child welfare service programs.

C.W. Gustafson v. Martin OMalley

District Court, C.D. California · Sep 23, 2025

FACTS RELEVANT TO THE APPEAL 4 A special needs trust for Plaintiff was established pursuant court order (the 5 “SNT”). (AR 116-29, 143-49.) … State plan. . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 1396p(d)(4)(A). 8 The Social Security Administration’s Program Operations Manual System (POMS) 9 interpreting this statute states: 10 To qualify

Mull v. Motion Picture Industry Health Plan

51 F. Supp. 3d 910 · District Court, C.D. California · Sep 30, 2014

It is undisputed that defendant Plan qualifies as an “employee welfare benefit plan” as defined by ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1002 (1). See Am. Ans. ¶ 1. … Mar. 27, 2012) (David Campbell, J.) *924 (“Clearly, Plaintiff cannot obtain additional benefits on the basis of allegedly deficient terms in the SPD.

Wm. T. Thompson Co. v. General Nutrition Corp.

593 F. Supp. 1443 · District Court, C.D. California · Sep 28, 1984

Although a master’s findings of fact are normally subject to review under the “clearly erroneous” standard established by Rule 53(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, see, e.g., United States v. … GNC’s partial last-minute tender of responsive documents does not cure the damage created by this delay, and consequently does not immunize GNC from the imposition of sanctions. See Wyle v. R.J.

Wayne Dinsmore Gray v. Kelly Santoro

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

But he has not shown that any such error would entitle him to habeas relief for a violation of clearly established federal law. See Runningeagle v. … Ryan, 686 F.3d 758, 774 (9th Cir. 2012) (“there is 14 no clearly established federal law requiring severance of criminal trials in state 15 court”).

Christopher Kluwe v. Huntington Beach Union High School District, et al.

District Court, C.D. California · Dec 19, 2025

Except as otherwise provided in this Order or as otherwise stipulated or 16 ordered, Disclosure or Discovery Material that qualifies for protection under this 17 Order must be clearly so designated before the material … material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as 18 confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 19 B.

TIMES NEWS. LTD.(GR. BRIT.) v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.

387 F. Supp. 189 · District Court, C.D. California · Dec 2, 1974

Counsel had made available to the press some “evidence” which was never offered, other that was clearly inadmissible. … Russian citizen didn’t qualify as a diversity claimant because of jurisdictional amount. 81. Windsor v.

Rogerson Aircraft Corp. v. Fairchild Industries, Inc.

632 F. Supp. 1494 · District Court, C.D. California · Apr 17, 1986

The Court also notes that Rogerson’s attorneys, as well as Fairchild’s attorneys, were highly qualified and exhibited great skill and preparedness in presenting the evidence and issues. … Thus, in those cases, an award of prejudgment interest was clearly appropriate under New York law. 13 .

Demetrize Hamilton v. Robert Gluna, et al.

District Court, C.D. California · Jun 30, 2026

, 4 before service of process if it concludes that the complaint (1) is frivolous or malicious, 5 (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or (3) seeks monetary relief 6 from a defendant who is immune … If Plaintiff chooses to file a First Amended Complaint, he 16 must clearly designate on the face of the document that it is the “First Amended 17 Complaint.”

Aurora World, Inc. v. Ty Inc.

719 F. Supp. 2d 1115 · District Court, C.D. California · Dec 15, 2009

Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1138 (9th Cir.2009) (“To qualify for injunctive relief, the plaintiffs must establish that ‘the balance of equities tips in [their] favor,’ ” quoting Winter, 129 S.Ct. at 374 ); American Trucking Associations … Now, he must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims. Such is necessary in order to clearly show that he is entitled to preliminary injunctive relief.” Small v.

In Re Countrywide Financial Corporation Securities Litigation

588 F. Supp. 2d 1132 · District Court, C.D. California · Dec 1, 2008

It has been long established in this Circuit that “general awareness of the day-to-day workings of the company’s business does not establish scienter.” Id. … Argent involves non-publicly traded debt instruments that Countrywide used to raise capital from qualified institutional buyers.

Negrete v. Allianz Life Insurance Co. of North America

287 F.R.D. 590 · District Court, C.D. California · Dec 27, 2012

If all class members suffered an injury in the form of a price increase that resulted because at least some class members relied on defendant’s misrepresentations, then class members’ injuries would clearly have resulted … Predominance under Rule 23(b)(3) The predominance inquiry “trains on legal or factual questions that qualify each class member’s case as a genuine controversy.” Amchem Prods., Inc. v.

Cholakyan v. MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC

796 F. Supp. 2d 1220 · District Court, C.D. California · Jun 30, 2011

To establish Article III standing, “a plaintiffs complaint must establish that he has a ‘personal stake’ in the alleged dispute, and that the alleged injury suffered is particularized as to him.” Raines v. … “In order to establish standing [to assert a] CLRA claim [a] Plaintiff[ ] must establish [that he] suffered an actual injury as a result of [defendant’s] alleged conduct.” Contreras v. Toyota Motor Sales USA, Inc., No.

Edwards v. Toys" R" US

527 F. Supp. 2d 1197 · District Court, C.D. California · Nov 5, 2007

See id. at 2216 ("The Court of Appeals correctly held that reckless disregard of a requirement of FCRA would qualify as a willful violation”). … The evidence does not clearly show that Lee violated Toys' protocol.

Guillermo Bill Gonzalez v. Anheuser-Busch Companies

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

Yocum is not a qualified witness, Ms. … Yocum is 4 a qualified witness under Rule 803(6) because “[t]he 5 phrase ‘other qualified witness’ is broadly interpreted 6 to require only that the witness understand the

Smart Inventions, Inc. v. Allied Communications Corp.

94 F. Supp. 2d 1060 · District Court, C.D. California · Mar 20, 2000

Clearly, there are several ways of conveying this idea, e.g., use of flashing words, scrolling a list on bottom of screen from left to right, etc. … There is no question that a television commercial qualify for protection under the Copyright Act.

Vinco Ventures, Inc. v. Milam Knecht and Warner, LLP

District Court, C.D. California · Sep 27, 2021

These communications are also considered extrajudicial communications that would not qualify for the judicial privilege. See Am. Compl. ¶ 285. … STAT. § 8343(a) McFillin points to two sets of statements that he alleges qualify as defamatory.

R. S. v. Prime Healthcare Services, Inc.

District Court, C.D. California · Jan 13, 2025

Minn. 7 Mar. 28, 2024) (“[T]he [c]ourt has serious doubts that a pecuniary purpose and an 8 injurious purpose can always be so clearly distinguished. … Prime Healthcare’s 27 financial motivation for disclosing R.S.’s Private Information does not immunize it 28 from liability under the ECPA. At this stage, by alleging these facts, R.S.

Rudy Jaquez v. County of San Bernardino

District Court, C.D. California · Oct 6, 2021

Cnty. of L.A., 772 F.3d 608, 618 (9th Cir. 2014) (a plaintiff 24 does not establish liability under Monell without showing that “a single incident of unconstitutional 25 actively” was more than an “isolated or sporadic” … Each claim plaintiff alleges 21 must clearly set forth which defendant(s) is alleged to be responsible for the alleged violation, and 22 clearly and concisely reference the factual allegations that are relevant to each

Diondra Williams v. Dumaguindin

District Court, C.D. California · May 18, 2021

Except as otherwise provided in 8 this Order, or as otherwise stipulated or ordered, material that qualifies for protection 9 under this Order must be clearly so designated before the material is disclosed or 10 produced … If only a portion or portions of the 2 material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly 3 identifytheprotectedportion(s)(e.g.,bymakingappropriatemarkingsinthemargins). 4 (b) for