Case law

Leonardo Magallon v. Bureau of Prisons

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

1915 and is required to dismiss the case at any time if it 9 concludes the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may 10 be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune … Further, Rule 8 requires that a complaint clearly establish the claims and 14 parties such that a defendant would have “no difficulty in responding to the claims 15 with an answer and/or with a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to

Bankruptcy Estate of Tung Nguyen Phuc v. MedPro Group Inc.

District Court, C.D. California · Oct 8, 2019

Though Holm doesn’t qualify for joinder under Rule 19(a), just adjudication still requires her presence in this action. See Boon v. Allstate Ins. Co., 229 F. Supp. 2d 1016, 1022 (C.D. … And in all events, consideration of the Section 1447(e) factors also establishes that remand would be efficient and equitable in this case.

Panasonic Holdings Corporation v. Getac Technology Corporation

District Court, C.D. California · Feb 28, 2020

The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery 2 Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not— without the submission of competent 3 evidence by declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal … The Designating Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) 15 (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). 16 8.

People of The State of California v. Eli Lilly and Company

District Court, C.D. California · Jun 28, 2023

Caremark also argues that OPM requires PBMs administering pharmacy 27 28 2 Plaintiff does not challenge that Defendants each qualify as a “person … implementation of its federal duties that the private person faces a significant risk of state- 16 court prejudice, just as a government employee would in similar circumstances, and may 17 have difficulty in raising an immunity

Threshold Media Corp. v. Relativity Media, LLC

166 F. Supp. 3d 1011 · District Court, C.D. California · Mar 15, 2013

Thus, the parties clearly discussed the issues raised in the motion for summary judgment several months before Defendants filed it. … The moving party bears the initial burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 , 106 S.Ct. 2548 , 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986).

DeVante Jefferson v. Alex Villanueva

District Court, C.D. California · Oct 22, 2019

Aug. 22, 2017). 16 To state a claim for violation of Title II of the ADA, a plaintiff must show that 17 (1) he is a qualified individual with a disability; (2) he was excluded from participation 18 in … Proof of random acts or isolated events is insufficient to 21 establish a custom or practice. Thompson v. City of L.A., 885 F.2d 1439, 1444 (9th 22 Cir. 1989).

Franklin Odinma v. Captain G. Lunt, et al.

District Court, C.D. California · Aug 3, 2026

9 prisoner has raised claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a 10 claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a 11 defendant who is immune … If 14 Plaintiff wants to try and state a claim for due process violations under the 15 Fourteenth Amendment, he should include additional facts to clearly describe what 16 deprivation of liberty he is asserting,

Donald Lyons, Jose Rea, Israel Medina, Israel Jimenez Jr., and Robert Lewis v. McLane Foodservice, Inc. and McLane Company, Inc.

District Court, C.D. California · Jun 22, 2026

As a representative action under PAGA, Madero II did not qualify as a class action removable under CAFA. See Canela v. … As discussed above, neither the initial complaint nor any other paper in the record clearly disclosed a CAFA ground for removal.

Sepulveda v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

237 F.R.D. 229 · District Court, C.D. California · May 5, 2006

Plaintiffs contend that Saad is not qualified to determine what activities are exempt; that he offers improper opinions on the merits; and that any such statements are premature at this stage. … Plaintiffs cannot rely on the Levine Report to establish facts.

Aziel Joey Gomez Perez v. Qantas Airways Limited

District Court, C.D. California · Dec 19, 2023

Nov. 5, 2015) (“A declaration from a person with knowledge of the relevant data is clearly an appropriate form of evidence.”). 2. … Plaintiff argues a 20% violation rate is reasonable because the Complaint qualifies the meal break violations as occurring “often” or “at times.” Dkt. 20 at 11.

Federal Trade Commission v. Gill

183 F. Supp. 2d 1171 · District Court, C.D. California · Jul 13, 2001

The letter clearly does not comply with the spirit of the Court’s Order. … Furthermore, CRCA claims that Murkey’s use of its premises and his performance of certain services for CRCA does not establish alter ego. See id.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Guild Mortgage Company LLC

District Court, C.D. California · Mar 8, 2023

The parties’ mere designation 10 of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not— without the 11 submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material sought 12 to be filed under … Mass, indiscriminate, or routinized designations are prohibited. 16 Designations that are shown to be clearly unjustified or that have been 17 made for an improper purpose (e.g., to unnecessarily encumber

Grand Bayman Belize, Ltd. v. Wells Fargo and Company

District Court, C.D. California · Jan 21, 2021

The California Court of Appeal 19 affirmed that section 11207(b)(1)’s safe harbor provided the bank immunity because, 20 even though the wire operator manually processed the wire, the bank relied on the 21 account number … Thus, Wells Fargo establishes that, as in 3 TME, the safe harbor applies. 4 B.

Elizabeth Jane Vincent Marquez v. Andrew Saul

District Court, C.D. California · Mar 19, 2021

The burden of establishing that work exists in “significant numbers” lies with the Commissioner. Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1099 (9th Cir. 1999). … A claimant can qualify for [DIB] only if her disability begins by her date last insured, and these benefits can be paid for up to 12 months before her application was filed.” Wellington v.

Fernando Huerta Chavarin v. General Motors LLC, et al.

District Court, C.D. California · Oct 29, 2025

Moreover, the “other 6 paper” under this section must establish that removability is “unequivocally clear and certain.” 7 Dietrich v. … Removability on June 16 2 Next, Plaintiff argues that, at the very latest, its June 16 disclosures qualified as an “other 3 paper” under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3) sufficient to

Lucas R. v. Alex Azar

District Court, C.D. California · Aug 30, 2022

“Category 1” sponsors are persons bearing the following relationships to 17 the minor: parent or legal guardian, including qualifying step-parents that 18 have legal or joint custody of the … The NOP shall clearly and thoroughly set forth the reason(s) for 25 placement and a summary of supporting evidence. 26 b.

Patrick White v. Mathew

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

There 19] are clearly no federal officers involved here. Accordingly, Plaintiff cannot state a claim □□□ under Section 1985(1). 21| IV. … This is plainly insufficient to establish Steckler’s liability 26 under Section 1981.

Michael Aaron McMahon v. Andrew Saul

District Court, C.D. California · Dec 2, 2020

established by medical evidence.” … 27 established.”

Brian Whitaker v. Sensu, Inc.

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

She did not agree that the Interior Counter 28 qualifies as a sales and service counter. (Ward Direct Testimony ¶ 11). … Ward testified that as an architect, when she locates and designs a sales 6 counter, “it’s typically . . . clearly visible from [the] entry and easy to find from all area[s] of the 7 store.” (Tr. Trans. at 64).

John C. Young v. Los Angeles Police Department

District Court, C.D. California · Apr 21, 2021

and is required to dismiss the case at any time if it 26 concludes the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may 27 be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune … Proof of random acts or isolated events is 7 insufficient to establish a custom or practice. Navarro v. Block, 72 F.3d 712, 714 (9th 8 Cir. 1996).