Case law

Homeowners Emergency Life Protection Committee v. Lynn

388 F. Supp. 971 · District Court, C.D. California · Dec 30, 1974

The procedural requirements established by that statute only obligate “agencies of the Federal Government” and only concern *974 “major Federal actions.” 42 U.S.C. § 4332 (2)(C) (1970) (emphasis added). … That case is, however, clearly distinguishable from the instant matter. In Silva , HUD had already approved a $4,000,000 mortgage guarantee and an interest grant of $156,000. 473 F.2d at 288 .

Jaime Camilo Camarena-Regalado v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group

District Court, C.D. California · Sep 25, 2023

Whether a Qualifying CBA Would Apply to Plaintiff Plaintiff argues that his overtime claim would not be preempted by the CBA, even if it were qualifying because he was not “working pursuant to . . . … The CBA did not “directly and clearly explain what constitutes a ‘change of schedule,’ nor how an agreement . . . is to be made.” Id.

Sharon Hoffman et al. v. Goli Nutrition, Inc. et al.

District Court, C.D. California · Jan 2, 2026

Plaintiffs must “clearly refer to tangible trade secret material” instead of referring to a “system which potentially qualifies for trade secret protection.” Id. at 1167 (emphasis in original). … See Imax Corp., 152 F.3d at 1167 (Plaintiffs must “clearly refer to tangible trade secret material” instead of referring to a “system which potentially qualifies for trade secret protection.”).

Joaquin Lopez v. Sargent Scorts, et al.

District Court, C.D. California · Jul 27, 2026

Cnty. of San Bernardino, 806 14 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015) (“It is well-established in our circuit that an 15 amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as 16 non-existent … (Id. at 4.) 22 Nor does Plaintiff clearly distinguish which allegations pertain to which 23 defendant.

Alberto Vincent Poggio v. United States Office of Personnel Management

District Court, C.D. California · Jul 6, 2022

Plaintiff—who was relatively healthy prior to travelling to Argentina—was 26 diagnosed with Guillain-Barre Syndrome, a rare immune disorder. (Id. 4160.) … Faced with a patient that was 10 clearly in dire condition, it would have been imprudent for Dr.

Jane Doe v. Wyndham Hotels and Resorts, Inc.

District Court, C.D. California · Apr 1, 2025

The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or 20 Discovery Material (as defined below) does not—without the submission of competent 21 evidence by declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under … “Counsel” (without qualifier) means Outside Counsel and In-House 1 Counsel (as well as their support staffs). 2 M.

Cherry Lee v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc.

District Court, C.D. California · May 7, 2024

(3) If 13 || such information has been disclosed to persons not qualified pursuant to paragraph(s) 14 || (12-13) below, the party who disclosed such information shall (a) take reasonable 15 || efforts to … This includes secure data storage systems, 21 || established security policies, and security training for employees, contractors and 22 || experts.

Hardaway v. Chater

21 F. Supp. 2d 1138 · District Court, C.D. California · Aug 8, 1996

Hendler did noté a “question of organic mental syndrome” because plaintiff appeared confused, and observed that plaintiff might have exertional difficulties which were not *1143 clearly explained in his examination. … as substantial or gainful, and to establish an entitlement to benefits based on medical evidence.

Michael L Lawson v. Kilolo Kijakazi

District Court, C.D. California · Dec 9, 2021

Feb. 19, 2019) 9 (“Where, like here, an ALJ’s decision violates a specific requirement clearly 10 mandated by Social Security regulations (i.e., failure to articulate specific factual 11 findings based on … A claimant is presumed to engage in substantial gainful activity if his 6 average monthly income from that activity exceeded specific established amounts.

Jose Landaverde v. Kinkisharyo International, L.L.C.

District Court, C.D. California · Oct 6, 2020

Because there is a sufficient showing that the CBA is a qualifying CBA under Section 514 and Curtis, and Plaintiffs do not contest whether the CBA is qualifying under Section 514, the overtime provisions of Section 510 … The Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Remand each relied on a sufficient showing that the CBA is a qualifying one under Section 514 and Plaintiffs failed to contest whether the CBA was a qualifying CBA under Section 514.

Classic Foods International Corp. v. Kettle Foods, Inc.

468 F. Supp. 2d 1181 · District Court, C.D. California · Jan 3, 2007

Other applications were refused by the PTO because the term “Kettle” as used on potato chips was not sufficiently distinctive to qualify for trademark registration. See Exhs. 505, 640. … When all of these differences are considered, CFI has clearly taken sufficient steps, through its mark and packaging, to identify itself as the source of “Kettle Classics.” IV.

Andrew Cheung et al v. Slickdeals, LLC

District Court, C.D. California · Jun 29, 2026

But a conclusory allegation that defendant intruded upon plaintiffs seclusion is not enough to establish standing. … July 12, 2024) (“As Plaintiff does not clearly allege what personalized information of hers was actually collected, she does not identify any harm to her privacy.”): see also Mikulsky v. Noom, Inc., 682 F.

Christian Calderon v. Kevin Hixon

District Court, C.D. California · Sep 27, 2024

See Shannon, 410 F.3d at 1088-89 (“If a 28 change in (or clarification of) state law, by a state court, in a case in which [the 1 petitioner] was not a party, could qualify as a ‘factual predicate,’ then the term 2 … If Petitioner disputes that this 17 || action is untimely, he must explain clearly and in detail why it is not untimely 18 provide any available competent evidence that establishes the timeliness of 19 || this action

Coach-Air LLC v. Davies US, LLC et al

District Court, C.D. California · Jan 7, 2026

This strong “presumption against removal jurisdiction means that ‘the defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper.’” Id. … Davies US, LLC et al is clearly in bad faith and intentionally aimed at delaying the progress” of this case. (Mot. at 9–10.)

Grigoryan v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.

84 F. Supp. 3d 1044 · District Court, C.D. California · Dec 18, 2014

Pettus were clearly wronged by UDR, and the minimal amount awarded by the trial court can be justified as nominal damages”). … Clearly, Grigoryan’s statements do not constitute expert testimony; he merely relates firsthand how defendants’ alleged violations made him feel.

Marine Amikhanyan et al v. Laurie Selber Silverstein et al

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

If the “case clearly is removable on the basis of jurisdictional facts 21 apparent from the face of the complaint,” then the Defendant must file a notice of removal within 30 22 days of service. … And the same qualifying language discussed is included in Plaintiffs’ second cause 6 of action allegations. Id. ¶ 63.

Williams v. Calderon

41 F. Supp. 2d 1043 · District Court, C.D. California · Dec 21, 1998

Petitioner must also establish prejudice as a result of counsel’s alleged errors and omissions. … “A reasonable tactical choice based on an adequate inquiry is immune from attack under Strickland.” Gerlaugh, 129 F.3d at 1033 (citation omitted). Petitioner has failed to establish deficient performance. C.

Christopher Albanese v. Navient Corporation et al

District Court, C.D. California · Apr 10, 2026

This statute “is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction,” and the party seeking removal “bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction.” Ethridge v. … If the plaintiff has not clearly or unambiguously alleged $75,000 in its complaint or has affirmatively alleged an amount less than $75,000 in its complaint, the burden lies with the defendant to show by a preponderance

Guido v. L'Oreal, USA, Inc.

284 F.R.D. 468 · District Court, C.D. California · May 7, 2012

Dannon Co., Inc., 255 F.R.D. 658, 664 (C.D.Cal.2009) (concluding that commonality was satisfied for a class of consumers who purchased Dannon yogurt products because the “class members clearly share common legal issues regarding … Predominance The predominance inquiry “trains on legal or factual questions that qualify each class member’s case as a genuine controversy.” Amchem Prods., Inc. v.

Keith A. Thomas v. The Secretary US Dept. of Veterans Affairs

District Court, C.D. California · Jun 7, 2024

Complaint with leave to amend, the District Judge explained that Plaintiff might be able to state a claim for disability discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act if he could show that: “(1) [he] is disabled; (2) [he] is a qualified … “Experience teaches that, unless cases are pled clearly and precisely, issues are not joined, discovery is not controlled, the trial court’s docket becomes unmanageable, the litigants suffer, and society loses