Case law

Anton Toutov v. Curative Labs Inc.

District Court, C.D. California · Aug 31, 2021

requires directors to perform their 5 duties in good faith and as an ordinarily prudent person in a like circumstance would. 6 It immunizes directors from liability if they can establish that they acted in accordance … A plaintiff may establish the existence of a contract by quoting its terms, 5 attaching it to the pleading, or clearly alleging the substance of the relevant terms. See 6 United Med. Devices, LLC v.

New Cingular Wireless PCS LLC v. City of West Covina, California

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

Id. 26 Federal Rule of Evidence 401 prescribes what evidence qualifies as relevant. Fed. R. Evid. 27 401. … AT&T merely 7 asserts this is not an opinion, but it clearly is.

Almont Ambulatory Surgery Center, LLC v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc.

99 F. Supp. 3d 1110 · District Court, C.D. California · Apr 10, 2015

All of these patients’ healthcare providers requested that United Healthcare authorize the patients to undergo the extensive preoperative tests necessary to determine whether they are qualified to receive Lap-Band surgery … Hewlett Packard Co., 455 F.3d 1026 (9th Cir.2006) as confirming the rule established in White .

Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Commission v. National Football League

468 F. Supp. 154 · District Court, C.D. California · May 16, 1979

These cooperative efforts may indicate the presence of antitrust violations rather than the existence of a joint venture that is immune from the antitrust laws. … The Coliseum further alleges that these provisions “preclude and impede plaintiff from initiating efforts to have established a new NFL franchise for Los Angeles.” Id. 4 .

Moran v. Morris

478 F. Supp. 145 · District Court, C.D. California · Sep 5, 1979

California has established a procedure for litigating Fourth Amendment claims. See Penal Code § 1538.5. … In essence Hayward, who had been given immunity with respect to the offenses of which petitioner was charged and who had been promised aid by the prosecution with respect to another offense of which he (Hayward) had been

Carson Harbor Village, Ltd. v. Unocal Corp.

287 F. Supp. 2d 1118 · District Court, C.D. California · Oct 31, 2003

The work plan merely established the method to be used. … These documents do not clearly identify the standards used by the RWQCB in reviewing and approving plaintiff's remediation plan.

Leopoldo Ariola v. Raytheon CA Technologies Corporation

District Court, C.D. California · Sep 6, 2023

(See Reply at 2) (“Defendants have not submitted any admissible evidence to establish that Plaintiff was a member of a union[.]”). … Accordingly, Plaintiff’s arguments regarding the applicability of the CBAs do not establish that the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. B.

Leopoldo Ariola v. Raytheon CA Technologies Corporation

District Court, C.D. California · Sep 6, 2023

(See Reply at 2) (“Defendants have not submitted any admissible evidence to establish that Plaintiff was a member of a union[.]”). … Accordingly, Plaintiff’s arguments regarding the applicability of the CBAs do not establish that the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. B.

Holifield v. UNUM LIFE INS. CO. OF AMERICA

640 F. Supp. 2d 1224 · District Court, C.D. California · Aug 5, 2009

Kundargi did not change her medical opinion that the records were inadequate to establish an ongoing loss of work capacity such that would qualify Holifield for benefits under the policy. AR 151. … The Ninth Circuit has noted: That a person has a true medical diagnosis does not by itself establish disability.

Allison Redondo-Lugo v. Kilolo Kijakazi

District Court, C.D. California · Mar 29, 2023

Other 10 courts have held that Penny does not establish such a requirement. See, e.g., Burns 11 v. Saul, 2020 WL 1547438, at *15 (E.D. Cal. … Oct. 31, 2017) (an ALJ 5 “may not act as his own medical expert as he is ‘simply not qualified to interpret 6 raw medical data in functional terms’”).

Christopher Poe v. Raybon Johnson

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

The Petition does not clearly disclose any basis for equitable tolling. … The exception is limited to claims of actual innocence; a petitioner does not qualify if he asserts procedural violations only.

Sammy El-Said v. BMW of North America, LLC

District Court, C.D. California · Mar 11, 2020

The Complaint does not clearly set forth the claims being brought by Plaintiff in this litigation. (See Compl.) … Courts “strictly construe the removal statute against removal jurisdiction,” and “the defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper.” Gaus v.

Stewart v. Wachowski

574 F. Supp. 2d 1074 · District Court, C.D. California · Mar 27, 2006

The court will therefore utilize the Pioneer factors as a guide in considering whether Stewart’s failure to submit defendants’ films in opposition to defendants’ summary judgment motion qualifies as excusable neglect. 2. … The statement is clearly relevant to the issue of access, however. See Reno v. Bossier Parish Sch.

Michael Alves v. The Hewlett Packard Enterprise Comprehensive Welfare Benefits Plan

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

Plan, 410 F.3d 1173, 1178 (9th Cir. 2005) (characterizing the factual support inquiry as whether the administrator “Telie[d] on clearly erroneous findings of fact”). … Thus, to qualify for LTD benefits, Plaintiff needed to establish that he was “Totally Disabled” and unable to perform the “Essential Functions” of his “Own Occupation” as of July 15, 2016 and that he was “unable to perform

Dale E. Phillips v. The Irvine Company LLC

District Court, C.D. California · Mar 7, 2025

The Court clearly has discretion 3 to decline plaintiff’s request for certification, even when the law is unclear, which 4 the Court concludes in this case it is not. 5 As to plaintiff … The Court 21 agrees with the determination in the R&R that plaintiff’s claim does not qualify for 22 any kind of tolling and that he “has not alleged any new injury that he suffered 23 within the six months before he

In Re: Steve William Nolan

District Court, C.D. California · Feb 12, 2021

First, he cites no law to directly establish that Appellee does not own an 3 equitable interest in the property. … The Bankruptcy Court’s Findings Were Not Clearly Erroneous 2 Factual findings are clearly erroneous if they are “illogical, implausible, or 3 without support in inferences that may be drawn from the record.”

Florence Walker v. State of California

District Court, C.D. California · May 25, 2021

“[A]n entity 12 with Eleventh Amendment immunity is not a ‘person’ within the meaning of § 1983.” 13 Howlett By & Through Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356, 365 (1990). … Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir. 17 2004) (finding negligence constituting medical malpractice is not sufficient to establish 18 an Eighth Amendment violation); Sanchez v.

Michael Terpin v. AT and T Inc

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

Terpin’s 17 account to offer him increased protection, there are no allegations that AT&T indicated 18 the code was immune to the limitations expressed in its Privacy Policy. … Terpin that the six-digit code would provide heightened security and AT&T 19 appropriately qualified that promise within its privacy policy.

Marcus R. Ellington, Sr. v. California Dept. of Corr. and Reh., Secretary of

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

“[A]n entity 19 with Eleventh Amendment immunity is not a ‘person’ within the meaning of § 1983.” 20 Howlett By & Through Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356, 365 (1990). … Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir. 19 2004) (negligence constituting medical malpractice is not sufficient to establish an 20 Eighth Amendment violation); Sanchez v.

James Johnson v. Los Angeles Sheriffs Department

District Court, C.D. California · Aug 28, 2019

Proof of random acts or isolated events is insufficient to 24 establish a custom or practice. Thompson v. City of L.A., 885 F.2d 1439, 1444 (9th 25 Cir. 1989). … The Clerk of Court is directed to mail Plaintiff a 27 blank Central District civil rights complaint form to use for filing the First 1 If Plaintiff chooses to file a Second Amended Complaint, he must clearly 2