Case law

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

James L. Ricalls v. Hinton

District Court, C.D. California · May 5, 2020

action is frivolous or malicious, fails to 27 1 state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a 2 defendant who is immune … District civil rights complaint form to use for filing the First Amended 6 Complaint, which the Court encourages Plaintiff to use. 7 If Plaintiff chooses to file a First Amended Complaint, he must clearly

Igor Zagruzny v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC

District Court, C.D. California · Jul 13, 2020

The Second Amended Complaint clearly alleges that SoundCloud Europe “falsely led Pulselocker to believe that it [SoundCloud Europe] was interested in acquiring Pulselocker or its assets.” (SAC § 10.) … There’s nothing in the complaint that clearly or plausibly pleads that SoundCloud Europe did, well, anything in California related to its alleged theft of Plaintiffs technology.

Beatport, LLC v. SoundCloud Limited

District Court, C.D. California · Jul 13, 2020

The Second Amended Complaint clearly alleges that SoundCloud Europe “falsely led Pulselocker to believe that it [SoundCloud Europe] was interested in acquiring Pulselocker or its assets.” (SAC § 10.) … There’s nothing in the complaint that clearly or plausibly pleads that SoundCloud Europe did, well, anything in California related to its alleged theft of Plaintiffs technology.

Steven Tapia v. Paragon Systems, Inc.

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

“The party invoking the removal statute bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction.” Ethridge v. Harbor House Restaurant, 861 F.2d 1389, 1393 (9th Cir. 1988). … Defendant’s Notice of Removal clearly sets forth that this exemption applies both by supporting evidence and reasoning, which Plaintiff does not address or rebut in his Motion.

Sanabria v. Small Business Lending, LLC

District Court, C.D. California · Jul 12, 2024

Accordingly, the Court addresses Defendants’ arguments under this section. 1 As is obvious from the above extensive elements, the determination of whether 2 an employee qualifies as exempt is necessarily fact intensive … 18 been violated, the court may impose an appropriate sanction . . . for the violation.”). 19 However, Rule 11 sanctions are “an extraordinary remedy” reserved for “the rare and 20 exceptional case where the action is clearly

Summit Technology, Inc. v. High-Line Medical Instruments Co.

922 F. Supp. 299 · District Court, C.D. California · Feb 28, 1996

However, in light of the Court’s resolution of the § 602(a) importation issue (see above), this argument clearly cannot stand. … Clearly, it is within the FDA's domain to determine whether York’s system is a "custom” device.

United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Western International Securities, Inc.

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

The parties’ mere 24 designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not— 25 without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the 26 material sought to be filed … clearly so designated before the material is disclosed or produced, except for the 5 Investigation Material, which can be designated at a later date. 6 Designation in conformity with this Order requires:

In Re Robert A. Ferrante

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

Seay rescinded the contract, the Amended Order simply noted 20 that Appellant was granted leave to amend to establish one of the grounds that would 21 entitle her to rescission (and restitution thereafter). … Sept. 16, 2016) (“If Smallwood chooses to file an amended complaint, he 2 is STRONGLY CAUTIONED that he must clearly identify the basis for this 3 Court’s subject matter jurisdiction.”)

In Re Amgen Inc. Securities Litigation

544 F. Supp. 2d 1009 · District Court, C.D. California · Feb 1, 2008

The Normal Hemocrit Study was a controlled study on patients with established heart disease. (CAC, ¶ 54.) … insufficient, standing alone, to demonstrate the exercise of control, Id., persuasive authority indicates that an officer or director who has signed financial statements containing materially false or misleading statements qualifies

Pamela Anne Mitchell v. John Jeffrey Mitchell et al.

District Court, C.D. California · Aug 12, 2026

Petitioner specifically seeks: (1) immediate independent appraisal by a qualified licensed appraiser and a distribution of assets in accordance with the Trust; (2) damages for Respondents’ alleged breach of fiduciary … The relief sought in the underlying petition includes “a change in trustee . . . and the redress of a breach of the trust by way of financial compensation,” and which “clearly falls within the purview of the state probate

David Baldazo v. Kilolo Kijakazi

District Court, C.D. California · Jun 26, 2024

“If a claimant has submitted evidence of a severe 14 impairment, we analyze an ALJ’s step-two denial by asking ‘whether the ALJ had 15 substantial evidence to find that the medical evidence clearly established that [the … Instead, they extract portions of records that 14 qualify as medical opinions from portions that may touch upon issues reserved for 15 the Commissioner.

Gerritsen v. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.

112 F. Supp. 3d 1011 · District Court, C.D. California · Jan 30, 2015

Feb. 18, 2009) (“Plaintiffs request that the Court take judicial notice of his own list of' encounters with the police ... is denied because plaintiffs own characterization of the matters reflected in his chart does not qualify … Gerritsen clearly seeks to have the court take judicial notice of the truth of the facts stated in the various press releases and news articles.

Guidry Liason Group, Inc. v. Reckart Logistics, Inc.

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

sufficient minimum contacts in 27 the other party’s home forum, we believe the answer clearly is that it cannot.”); Kulko, 436 U.S. at 28 93 (declining to “find personal jurisdiction in a State . . . merely because … citing to Interrogatory Responses and other discovery). 21 5 Reckart argues that the “use of the mails, telephone, or other international communications simply do not qualify

Manuel Ollarsaba v. Unknown

District Court, C.D. California · Jan 7, 2022

and is required to dismiss the case at any time if it concludes the 12 action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, 13 or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune … Further, 15 Rule 8 requires that a complaint clearly establish the claims and parties such that a 16 defendant would have “no difficulty in responding to the claims with an answer 17 and/or with a Rule 12(b)(6) motion

H.L., D.L.1, Cleavotta Morgan, and David Morgan v. County of Los Angeles, Kazeem Abass, Nchegem Orji, Salma Zubair

District Court, C.D. California · Jan 20, 2026

Spokane Police Dep’t, 19 F.4th 9 1193, 1201 (9th Cir. 2021) (holding that a single incident of constitutional violation is 10 not sufficient to establish improper custom). … However, section 845.6 clearly carves 12 out an exception for a public entity’s failure to summon medical care “where the 13 [tortfeasor] employee is acting within the scope of his employment.”

James B. Jordan v. Plaff

District Court, C.D. California · Jun 30, 2023

Further, 18 Rule 8 requires that a complaint clearly establish the claims and parties such that a 19 defendant would have “no difficulty in responding to the claims with an answer 20 and/or with a Rule 12(b)(6) motion … Proof of random acts or isolated events is 22 insufficient to establish a custom or practice. Thompson, 885 F.2d at 1444.

Trumaine Thompson v. W.L. Montgomery

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

in this case.”). 3 For these reasons, the state court’s rejection of Petitioner’s claim in Ground 4 One was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established 5 federal law. … 20 established federal law.

Joseph Chandler Davall v. Warren Montgomery

District Court, C.D. California · Nov 14, 2021

Sources of “Clearly Established Federal Law” 2 According to Williams v. … To determine what, if any, 5 “clearly established” United States Supreme Court law exists, a federal habeas court also may 6 examine decisions other than those of the United States Supreme Court.20 Ninth Circuit cases

Deborah Thornton v. Nancy A. Berryhill

District Court, C.D. California · Oct 25, 2019

established that [the claimant] did not have a 2 medically severe impairment or combination of impairments.” … An ALJ must clearly identify each statement 2 being rejected and the particular evidence in the record which purportedly 3 undermines the statement.