Case law

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

Ronald A. Katz Technology Licensing, L.P. v. Time Warner Cable Inc.

712 F. Supp. 2d 1080 · District Court, C.D. California · May 5, 2010

Since ODS contained other information (not just a list of delinquent accounts), Charter argues that it does qualify as negative file data. This Court rejects Charter’s argument. … Laches must be established by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. at 1045 . *1110 2.

Norris L. Reese v. Ron Broomfield

District Court, C.D. California · Jun 4, 2021

Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010), and should qualify him for a reduction in his 4 || sentence by hearing pursuant to People v. Franklin, 63 Cal. 4th 261 (Cal.), cert. 5 || denied, 137 S. … Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 996-97 (1991) (Kennedy, J., concurring)); see also Andrade, 538 U.S. at 72 (noting that under “clearly established” Eighth Amendment jurisprudence, “[a] gross disproportionality principle

Englebrick v. Worthington Industries, Inc.

944 F. Supp. 2d 899 · District Court, C.D. California · May 13, 2013

Plaintiffs’ perjury and deceptive misconduct clearly qualifies as extraordinary circumstance justifying dismissal of their claims against Worthington. B. … And Plaintiffs knew that Worthington’s defense to their claims depended on Worthington establishing their extensive meth use and addiction.

Barbara J Magrath v. Marsh and McLennan Companies, Inc.

District Court, C.D. California · Aug 16, 2019

“The right to remove a state court case to federal court is clearly limited to defendants.” American Int’! Underwriters (Philippines), Inc. v. Continental Ins. … “The plain language of [§ 1441(a)] clearly limits the right of removal to ‘defendants.’ In this case, the Fund is not even a party to the state action.

United States v. Rodriguez

924 F. Supp. 2d 1108 · District Court, C.D. California · Jan 11, 2013

Any person eighteen-and-over who has resided for at least one year within the district is qualified to serve on a grand or petit jury unless she is unable to read, write, or understand English enough to satisfactorily complete … The Ninth Circuit has not spoken clearly on whether the failure to comply with § 1867's procedural requirements bars a constitutional challenge to a jury selection procedure. See Paige v.

Siegel v. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.

542 F. Supp. 2d 1098 · District Court, C.D. California · Mar 26, 2008

Superior Court, 159 Cal.App.3d 389, 396 , 205 Cal.Rptr. 682 (1984) (“California law has generally held that a qualified acceptance ... affects the viability of the offer itself, so that ‘a qualified acceptance amounts to … Code § 1585 (“A qualified acceptance is a new proposal.”).

Kiss Catalog v. Passport Intern. Productions, Inc.

350 F. Supp. 2d 823 · District Court, C.D. California · Dec 21, 2004

To the Court's knowledge, the TRIPs agreement only establishes a floor, rather than a ceiling, for the protection of intellectual property. … Thus, Congress could have intended to establish a term of protection even longer than 50 years. In any case, 1976 is well within the minimum 50-year period established by TRIPs. See generally Susan M.

Kent Sachs v. Pankow Operating, Inc.

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

“The burden of establishing jurisdiction falls on the party invoking the 7 removal statute, which is strictly construed against removal.” Sullivan v. … That condition is also met, since the CBA clearly provides for these things. 20 (See id. at 27–32, 37–44, 46–54).

Marine Amikhanyan et al v. Laurie Selber Silverstein et al

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

And the same qualifying language discussed is included in Plaintiffs’ 19 second cause of action allegations. Id. ¶ 63. … Motion at 17 16. 18 To establish a tort claim for IIED, a plaintiff must establish: (1) extreme and outrageous 19 conduct by the defendant

Yeffri Ulloa v. Blackstone Consulting, Inc.

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

For example, the wage rate in Riverside 21 County applicable to Plaintiff when he first started in June 2023 was $16.00—clearly nowhere near 22 … There is a split among district 6 courts on the question of whether Section 514 requires a qualifying CBA to provide premium wages 7 merely to the plaintiff or to all other employees in the bargaining unit.

Intelligent SCM LLC v. Marc Lauzon, Angela Lauzon, Tribike Transport LLC, and Does 1–300

District Court, C.D. California · Aug 31, 2026

“Judgment on the pleadings is proper when the moving party clearly 21 establishes on the face of the pleadings that no material issue of fact … Judgment on the pleadings is not proper unless the movant “clearly 26 establishes on the face of the pleadings that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved.”

Casault v. Federal National Mortgage Ass'n

915 F. Supp. 2d 1113 · District Court, C.D. California · Nov 26, 2012

As Plaintiffs are unable to establish a duty, it is unnecessary to discuss the elements of breach, causation, and damages. … Finally, “default” is clearly defined as Plaintiffs’ failure to make loan payments.

William James Mathew Wallace II v. Alex Villanueva

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

(J Seeks monetary relief from a defendant immune Failure to provide certified copy of trust fund from such relief. statement for the last six (6) months. … In addition, in direct violation of the December 10 Order, the SAC again 28 || names Sheriff Villanueva and the County as Defendants, even though Plaintiff was 1 || clearly told he could not do so.

Garamendi v. SDI Vendome S.A.

276 F. Supp. 2d 1030 · District Court, C.D. California · Aug 4, 2003

It this standard rule of accrual were applied here, the Commissioner’s claims clearly would be time-barred. … In light of such a lengthy and unexplained delay, the Commissioner cannot qualify for the Whitfield exception to the discovery rule. IV.

Kevin Wilcox v. Dearborn Insurance Company

District Court, C.D. California · Jan 26, 2023

To qualify for continued coverage, Plaintiff must establish he is “completely unable because of Sickness or Injury to engage in any occupation for wage or profit or any occupation for which [he] become[s] qualified by … Williams’s 2016 report, it is clearly insufficiently detailed to serve as an “updated” functional capacity evaluation.

Del Monte International Gmbh v. Del Monte Corp.

995 F. Supp. 2d 1107 · District Court, C.D. California · Feb 5, 2014

A claim meets this standard only if it is clearly contradicted by prior decisions so “as to foreclose the subject and leave no room for inference that the questions sought to be raised can be the subject of controversy.” … If there is more than one qualified application for an identical or similar gTLD string, a "String Contention” case arises. Id. at 1-13.

AETHER, LLC v. Unt Holding OU

District Court, C.D. California · Oct 31, 2022

Reich, 13 F.3d 1370, 1377 (9th Cir. 1994) (“Records and reports of 12 administrative bodies . . . clearly constitute [matters of the public record].”). … Registration and prosecution of trademark 14 First, the fact that Unt applied to register the “A Aether” mark fails to qualify as “purposeful 15 direction.”

Wilkinson v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

633 F. Supp. 336 · District Court, C.D. California · Apr 3, 1986

(a) Confidentiality In order to qualify under either part of Exemption 7(D), the deletion must involve a “confidential source.” 22 This requires that the government’s affidavit show that the source was given either an express … While there may have been a danger of identifying the informant when the events were recent, that danger clearly fades as the documents become decades old.

Julia Wilson v. Target Corporation

District Court, C.D. California · Oct 13, 2023

Plaintiff moves to remand this action to state court on the ground that Defendant’s removal is untimely because the amount in controversy was clearly set forth in the Complaint, Plaintiff served the Complaint on March 16 … Lamar Corp., 385 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2004) (“For a case to qualify for federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), there must be complete diversity of citizenship between the parties opposed in interest.”).