Case law

Jamie Peter Swart v. Lyle Forehand

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

whether the action is frivolous or malicious; 16 fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or seeks monetary relief against 17 a defendant who is immune from such relief. … Cnty. of 5 Los Angeles, 772 F.3d 608, 618 (9th Cir. 2014) (a plaintiff does not establish liability 6 under Monell without showing that “a single incident of unconstitutional actively” 7 was more than an “isolated

Lajuana Danette White v. Fesia Davenport

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

Plaintiff is reminded to provide a short, plain statement of what happened, identify her claims against each Defendant, and clearly describe each Defendant’s wrongful conduct. … Plaintiff should clearly identify each Defendant being sued and the capacity in which Plaintiff is suing each Defendant.

MOTIV GROUP, INC. v. CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY

District Court, C.D. California · Apr 1, 2021

BACKGROUND2 2 Motiv is a corporation operating a “retail establishment” with two locations, a 3 “retail store” and a “warehouse.” (Compl. ¶ 4; Opp’n 1.) … Coast Hotel Mgmt., 2020 WL 17 6440037, at *4–7 (same). 18 Here, the Policy provisions on which Motiv relies clearly condition recovery on 19 “direct physical loss of

Joy Johnson v. Navient Corporation

District Court, C.D. California · Oct 15, 2024

The party seeking 10 removal bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. … Here, Plaintiffs do not clearly indicate 25 whether the theory for breach of covenant applies to the original contract, the new 26 contract, or both.

Felisa Todd v. Rocket Mortgage, LLC

District Court, C.D. California · Feb 15, 2023

Nov. 19, 2014) (“Quality cannot be deemed a nominal defendant because the Complaint clearly demonstrates it is not a mere stakeholder. … For example, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have ‘purposefully and willfully harassed Plaintiff’ by ‘trespassing’ and putting the house up for sale, despite him qualifying for a loan modification”).

Daniel Mora Mendoza v. W.J. Sullivan

District Court, C.D. California · Jan 29, 2021

presented in the State court proceeding. 13 Under AEDPA, the “clearly established Federal law” that controls federal 14 habeas review of state-court decisions consists of the holdings, as opposed … A state-court decision is “contrary to” 20 clearly established federal law if the decision either applies a rule that contradicts 21 binding governing Supreme Court law or reaches a result that differs from the result

Curtis Hernandez v. N. McDowell

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

However, “[e]ven if a petitioner can demonstrate that he qualifies for one of these exceptions, he must [still] seek authorization from the court of appeals before filing his new petition with the district court.” … The Court dismissed the 2010 petition with leave to amend on February 10, 2010 due to multiple pleading deficiencies, including Petitioner’s failure to clearly articulate his claims and to name a respondent.

Sarah Loof v. Upland Unified School District

District Court, C.D. California · Nov 22, 2023

Standard of Review Findings of fact can be overturned only when clearly erroneous. Amanda J. ex rel. Annette J. v. … Standard of Review The IDEA requires that states and local educational agencies (“LEAs”) that receive IDEA funds offer a FAPE to students who have qualifying disabilities

Walter H. Hackett, III v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. at al

District Court, C.D. California · Nov 4, 2019

following the receipt of certain qualifying requests. … Nor does it clearly state, or fail to state, what missing documents the bank required.

One-E-Way, Inc. v. Apple Inc.

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

this Order must be clearly so designated before the material is disclosed or 10 produced. 11 Designation in conformity with this Order requires: … This provision is not intended to modify whatever 15 procedure may be established in an e-discovery order that provides for production 16 without prior privilege review.

Abraham Kim v. LA County Sheriffs Department

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

Complaint is subject to sua sponte 4 || review and must be dismissed if it is: (1) frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to state a 5 || claim upon which relief may be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief from a 6 || defendant immune … That is, the plaintiff must establish an 3 || affirmative causal link between the policy at issue and the alleged constitutional 4 || violation. See City of Canton v.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as Receiver for Washington Mutual Bank v. Trustworthy Mortgage Corporation

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

The parties’ mere designation of 18 Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not— without the 19 submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material sought 20 to be filed … Mass, indiscriminate, or routinized designations are prohibited. 2 Designations that are shown to be clearly unjustified or that have been 3 made for an improper purpose (e.g., to unnecessarily encumber

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

District Court, C.D. California · Feb 23, 2023

designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not— 3 without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing … for protection under this Order must 8 be clearly so designated before the material is disclosed or produced, except for the

Kevin Enoch v. Andrew Saul

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

The Commissioner has the burden 10 || of proof at step five —i.e., establishing that the claimant could perform other work in 11 || the national economy. Id. 12 B. … DOT 239.567-010, 1991 WL 672232, which the DOT’s companion 20 21 22 °There is no bright-line rule as to what constitutes a “significant” number of jobs 23 nationally, but any aggregate number over 25,000 clearly

Absolute USA, Inc. v. Harman Professional, Inc.

District Court, C.D. California · Feb 14, 2023

discrimination 19 by such establishments.”). … Harman is a business establishment under the meaning of the Unruh Act. 4 “The Unruh Act only applies to business establishments that are generally open to the public, 5 and mandates that those establishments serve

Mobil Oil Corp. v. Altech Industries, Inc.

117 F.R.D. 650 · District Court, C.D. California · Nov 3, 1987

Clearly, in this case, the cost factor involved in appointing a Special Master is far outweighed by the benefits to be derived therefrom. … “First, it may arise by virtue of express contractual language establishing a duty in one party to save another harmless upon the occurrence of specified circumstances.

Skye Orthobiologics, LLC v. CTM Biomedical, LLC

District Court, C.D. California · Apr 17, 2024

Rather, “while the fact of damages must be clearly shown, 12 the amount need not be proved with the same degree of certainty,” so long as a “reasonable 13 approximation” is made. Robi v. … Khars calculated HRT’s past lost profits to be $4,102,291—Banman argues that this clearly 2 signifies an excessive award because the award is almost twice this calculation.

Kenneth Floyd Prutting v. Felipe Martinez

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

This allegation 9 plainly does not establish “actual innocence.” … However, the jury clearly rejected Petitioner’s version of 14 events, deliberating less than an hour before finding Petitioner 15 guilty (R.T. 111-13).

Marlen A. Beltran Zamora v. Overhill Farms, Inc.

District Court, C.D. California · Aug 21, 2019

Claims to vindicate non-negotiable state law rights that are 5 “independent of any right established by contract” are not within the scope 6 of § 301. Id. at 213. … The CBA goes on to define clearly the 2 rates of pay, and dictates that daily overtime shall be offered based on 3 seniority. Id.

Doe 1 v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

District Court, C.D. California · Nov 20, 2020

fact that such other international students are returning students rather 15 than first-year students” or (2) preventing Defendants from interpreting their July 16 24, 2020 guidance “to preclude the [Plaintiffs] from qualifying … See Dahl, 7 F.3d at 19 1403 (mandatory injunctive relief is “subject to a heightened scrutiny and should 20 not be issued unless the facts and law clearly favor the moving party”)..