Case law

Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Sony Corp. of America

480 F. Supp. 429 · District Court, C.D. California · Dec 5, 1979

Sonam is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York and qualified to do business and doing business in the. State of California. Sonam distributes the Betamax in the United States. … In applying the Old Act, courts created the fair use doctrine to immunize some forms of copying from the literal implications of the statute. The fair use doctrine is discussed extensively below.

Katie A. v. Bonta

433 F. Supp. 2d 1065 · District Court, C.D. California · Mar 14, 2006

Section 1983 provides a remedy only for the deprivation of “rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” of the United States. … Plaintiffs rely on different experts to establish that point. See below. 10 .

Booth v. Barnhart

181 F. Supp. 2d 1099 · District Court, C.D. California · Jan 22, 2002

Robert’s opinion establishes that he is disabled. [See Plaintiffs Memorandum at 3-7], Defendant, on the other hand, contends that Dr. … Robert’s opinion controlling weight, and her opinion does not conclusively establish that plaintiff is entitled to benefits. According to her own report, Dr.

Huston v. Imperial Credit Commercial Mortgage Investment Corp.

179 F. Supp. 2d 1157 · District Court, C.D. California · Dec 21, 2001

Parise clearly participated in discussions of both *1174 of these issues. See July 11, 1997 Legal Bill at 8, 10; Karlan Decl. ¶ 7. … Thus, the Court clearly does not consider the instant disqualification issues frivolous. E.

Devin Singleton v. County of Riverside

District Court, C.D. California · Apr 28, 2022

In addition, Plaintiff should clearly, precisely, and briefly 5 identify the legal basis and the essential facts underlying each claim. … If Plaintiff chooses 18 to file a SAC, he must clearly designate on the face of the document that it is the “Second 19 Amended Complaint.”

Bhopinder Dhillon v. Princess Cruise Lines Ltd.

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

Plaintiffs are not qualified experts in the medical field. … As stated above, Plaintiffs are not qualified to opine on their own medical diagnosis.

Larell Epps v. National Distribution Centers, LLC

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

Moreover, the Court disagrees that the Complaint “clearly allege[s] a common policy and practice of failure to pay all wages earned at the time of separation as to all formerly employed putative class members.” … Oct. 27, 2021) (“Plaintiff’s complaint does not expressly allege or infer that every class member would qualify for every subclass or would qualify for every claim within a subclass.”); cf. Garza v.

LA Gem and Jewelry Design, Inc. v. Groupon, Inc.

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

Parties bear 23 the obligation to lay out their support clearly. Carmen v. S.F. Unified Sch. Dist., 237 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2001). … Thus, LA Gem adequately establishes the 21 extrinsic test.

Springate v. WEIGHMASTERS MURPHY, INC. MONEY PUR.

217 F. Supp. 2d 1007 · District Court, C.D. California · Jun 3, 2002

"Fiduciaries shall diversify Plan assets to minimize risk of large losses, unless under the circumstances it is clearly prudent not to do so." 4. … A qualified fiduciary should be appointed as a substitute fiduciary immediately. 9. An award of attorney fees and costs is warranted Plaintiff seeks an award of his attorney's fees and costs.

Stanley v. Baca

137 F. Supp. 3d 1192 · District Court, C.D. California · Sep 15, 2015

pending the entry of judgment in this case. 3 DISCUSSION By the Motion, Respondent asks the District Judge to find that the February 19 Order—which denied the Prior Motion and found that Section 2241 governs this case—was clearly … Citing White , the Ninth Circuit reiterated that a petitioner may resort to Section-2241 only when he is not a person in custody pursuant to a'state court judgment and, thus, does not qualify for relief under Section 2254

Christian Alcala v. City of Garden Grove et al.

District Court, C.D. California · Dec 5, 2025

Such a 1 pleading thus runs afoul of Rule 8(a)(2)’s and Rule 10(b)’s mandates directing pleaders 2 to clearly, discretely, and succinctly present their claims or defenses. See Weiland, 3 792 F.3d at 1320, 1323. … Dec. 28, 2023) (“The conduct underlying an excessive force 17 claim can qualify as ‘outrageous conduct’ for purposes of an [IIED] claim.”).

Eric D. Bailey v. LoanCare LLC and Lakeview Loan Servicing LLC

District Court, C.D. California · Nov 3, 2025

July 2, 2012) (“Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, the Complaint clearly pleads causes of action under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, both federal statutes. … “Letters challenging only a loan’s validity or its terms are not qualified written requests that give rise to a duty to respond under [the statute].” Id. at 667.

Mattel, Inc. v. MGA ENTERTAINMENT, INC.

782 F. Supp. 2d 911 · District Court, C.D. California · Jan 5, 2011

MGA Mexico is therefore immune from liability under Mexican law, but not California law. … The Inventions Agreement acknowledged that its assignment "does not apply to an invention which qualifies under the provision of Section 2870.” Proctor Dec., Ex. 124. 6 .

Neeta Gayakwad v. RSCR California, Inc.

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

Plaintiff argues that RSCR Inland qualifies as an employer under California law, either because it is a joint employer with Rescare or because it qualifies as an integrated enterprise with Rescare. … The “control” standard, “has no clearly identified, precisely literal statutory or common law antecedent.” Guerrero v. Superior Court, 213 Cal. App. 4th 912, 947 (2013) (quoting Martinez, 45 Cal. 4th at 59).

Nyia Marjani Finney v. FedEx Corporation; Federal Express Corp.; Federal Express Corporation; Federal Express Corporation Payroll Services; Chris Doe; and Does 1 to 100, inclusive

District Court, C.D. California · Mar 25, 2026

She applied to several internal positions, which Finney alleges she was 13 qualified for, but she was never interviewed for any of these positions. Id. ¶ 14(i). … from Section 1441(b)(1) that “the citizenship of defendants sued under fictitious 12 names shall be disregarded” for purposes of determining removability based on diversity 13 jurisdiction, and a motion to remand clearly

Fleischer Studios, Inc. v. A.V.E.L.A., Inc.

772 F. Supp. 2d 1135 · District Court, C.D. California · Dec 16, 2008

Tomy Corp., 680 F.2d 905, 918 (2d Cir.1980) (explaining that it was proper for district court judge to rule on issue of substantial similarity because, “[ajlthough the issue of substantial similarity is clearly a factual … Further, Plaintiff contends that its trademark registrations are more than five years old, qualifying them for “incontestable” status under the Lanham Act. 15 U.S.C. § 1065 ; Park ’N Fly, Inc. v.

Antonio Fernando Melara v. Elaine Duke

District Court, C.D. California · Oct 28, 2021

past agency interpretation, is in 22 conflict with the Department of State’s current interpretation of the false 23 claim to citizenship ground of inadmissibility, and is a break from Congress’s 24 clearly … An agency’s interpretation of an unambiguous 25 statute receives no deference if the interpretation is not in line with 26 Congress’s clearly expressed intent. See, e.g., Valenzuela Gallardo v.

Jane Doe v. Wyndham Hotels and Resorts

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

as defined below) that a party seeks to file under seal. 9 The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material (as defined below) 10 does not—without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing … “Counsel” (without qualifier) means Outside Counsel and In-House 18 Counsel (as well as their support staffs). 19 M.

Dowd v. City of Los Angeles

28 F. Supp. 3d 1019 · District Court, C.D. California · May 23, 2014

a deterrent to officials involved in establishing and implementing arrest policies). … Because the Court’s February 27, 2014 entry of judgment qualifies as an “entry of judgment or other final order,” the City’s Motion for Costs is timely.

Rayford Tyler, Jr. v. Josie Gastelo

District Court, C.D. California · Oct 8, 2020

Supreme Court cases and are in any event, like 22 Dimaya, not relevant clearly established federal law here because 23 Petitioner’s sentence was enhanced under state statutes. 24 … Newland, 410 F.3d 1083, 1087-89 (9th Cir. 27 2005) (holding that change in state law does not qualify as removal of “impediment” under subsection (B) or “factual 28 predicate