Case law

United States v. King

536 F. Supp. 253 · District Court, C.D. California · Mar 15, 1982

9 These facts were sufficient to put the defendant on notice that her remarks were not being made to a trusted advisor of her clients, that is, in a confidential setting. 10 A review of the testimony at the first trial clearly … Finally, it should be noted that a grant of immunity to the consenting individual does not render the consent involuntary. United States v.

Boyd v. Bank of America Corp.

109 F. Supp. 3d 1273 · District Court, C.D. California · May 6, 2015

Both positions are clearly *1289 distinguishable. … Likewise, Rincon , cited by the Defendants, is clearly distinguishable.

Sysco Riverside, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local No. 495

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

If only a portion or portions of the material on a page 3 qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected 4 portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). … If only a portion or portions of the 14 material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly 15 identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). 16

Steffin v. First Charter Financial Corp.

77 F.R.D. 498 · District Court, C.D. California · Feb 8, 1978

Some of these allegations, if established, would be indicative of discrimination based upon sex. … being qualified to handle such litigation.

Brown v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am.

356 F. Supp. 3d 949 · District Court, C.D. California · Jan 29, 2019

Moreover, on November 7, 2016, based on an objective measure of the strength of Plaintiff's immune system, doctors at SCCA recommended to Dr. … Plaintiff's usual occupation clearly requires executive-level cognitive functioning. See Demer v. IBM Corp.

Green v. Baca

219 F.R.D. 485 · District Court, C.D. California · Dec 16, 2003

that Judge Nagle’s refusal to deny plaintiffs motion to compel outright was clearly erroneous. … As the party asserting the attorney-client privilege and work product immunity, Defendant has the burden to establish that the privilege/immunity applies.

Roy v. County of Los Angeles

114 F. Supp. 3d 1030 · District Court, C.D. California · Jul 9, 2015

“A dismissal on the pleadings for failure to state a claim is proper only if ‘the movant clearly establishes that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’ ” … The claims clearly satisfy City of San Jose’s “some compliance” prong, as they specify Mr. Roy and Ms.

OKYN Holdings, Inc. v. Hori U.S.A., Inc.

District Court, C.D. California · Nov 22, 2021

If only a portion or portions of the material on 12 a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the 13 protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). 14 … If only a portion or portions of the material on 25 a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the 26 protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). 27

Boultinghouse v. Hall

583 F. Supp. 2d 1145 · District Court, C.D. California · Oct 8, 2008

“Clearly established Federal law” refers to the governing legal principle or principles set forth by the Supreme Court at the time the state court renders its decision. Lockyer v. … For purposes of habeas review under 28 U.S.C. section 2254 (d), Strickland sets forth clearly established Federal law as determined by the United States Supreme Court. See Williams v.

Sanchez v. Hedgpeth

706 F. Supp. 2d 963 · District Court, C.D. California · Feb 28, 2010

Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has held that the admission of propensity evidence does not violate clearly established federal law. See Mejia v. … Thus, Petitioner’s claim fails because the Supreme Court has not clearly established a constitutional right to the appointment of forensic experts. See Carey v.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. County of Los Angeles

531 F. Supp. 122 · District Court, C.D. California · Jan 29, 1982

While review of this court’s finding is, of course, for the Court of Appeals, this court, in view of the record here, believes defendant is not likely to establish that this finding of fact was clearly erroneous. *125 Turning … What is more, any employees hired pursuant to this court’s order have, of course, to be otherwise qualified for their positions.

Santa Ynez Band of Mission Indians v. Torres

262 F. Supp. 2d 1038 · District Court, C.D. California · Aug 29, 2002

from suit, and because Congress did not intend to waive that immunity under this Act. … The "Dry Creek exception,” established in Dry Creek Lodge, Inc. v.

Scott Robert Moore v. Amy C. Yerkey, et al.

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

For 3 example, Plaintiff appears to argue that his case qualifies for an exception to the 4 Anti-Injunction Act under Mitchum v. … Moreover, 4 “Plaintiff does not clearly allege how he has been excluded from any benefit or 5 service offered by the Sheriff’s Department, nor is it evident that the Sheriff has any 6 authority to delay enforcement

D.R. Ex Rel. Courtney R. v. Antelope Valley Union High School District

746 F. Supp. 2d 1132 · District Court, C.D. California · Oct 8, 2010

To establish a violation under Title II of the ADA, a plaintiff must show that: “(1) she is a qualified individual with a disability; (2) she was excluded from participation in or otherwise discriminated against with regard … To establish a violation of Section 504, a plaintiff must show that: "(1) she is handicapped within the meaning of the [Rehabilitation Act]; (2) she is otherwise qualified for the benefit or services sought; (3) she was denied

Henry v. Federal Deposit Insurance

695 F. Supp. 2d 1063 · District Court, C.D. California · Feb 18, 2010

When a revocable trust account was established by more than one owner and held for the benefit of others, some or all of whom were qualifying beneficiaries, the regulation provided that the respective interests of each owner … Where a revocable trust account is established by more than one depositor, and held for the benefit of others, some or all of whom are qualifying beneficiaries, “the respective interests of each owner (which shall be deemed

Nancy Paley v. Saks and Company LLC

District Court, C.D. California · Jun 24, 2024

If only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for 15 protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., 16 by making appropriate markings in the margins). … If only a portion or portions of the material on a page 26 qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected 27 portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins).

La Parne v. Monex Deposit Co.

714 F. Supp. 2d 1035 · District Court, C.D. California · Apr 29, 2010

Size, Type, and Intrastate Activity of the Establishment Finally, Plaintiff argues that Monex does not qualify as a “retail or service establishment” because it does not meet the definition set forth in 29 C.F.R. § 779.337 … , which states: (a) An establishment which is a “retail or service establishment” within the Act’s statutory definition of that term (See discussion in Secs. 779.312 to 779.336) must, to qualify as an exempt retail or service

United States ex rel. Bagley v. TRW Inc.

212 F.R.D. 554 · District Court, C.D. California · Feb 5, 2003

Court for Dist. of Arizona, 881 F.2d 1486, 1494 (9th Cir.1989) (“The work-product rule is not a privilege but a qualified immunity protecting from discovery documents and tangible things prepared by a party or his representative … Although the government clearly is not intended to be adverse to the relator, there is some indication that the government occasionally may provide a disclosure statement to a defendant. See Havian, supra, at L-17.

AMAN GROUP S.á.r.l. v. AMAN SPIRITS LLC and GERARDO MADRIGAL

District Court, C.D. California · Jul 30, 2026

If only a portion(s) of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the 20 Producing Party must clearly identify the protected portion(s). 21 (b) for testimony given in depositions … No Party 11 to this action shall thereafter assert that such disclosure waived any privilege or immunity. 12 It is further agreed that the Receiving Party shall return or destroy such privileged or 13 immune documents

Vallier v. Jet Propulsion Laboratory

120 F. Supp. 2d 887 · District Court, C.D. California · Aug 2, 2000

The United States and plaintiffs oppose the petition, claiming that Caltech does not qualify as a government employee but, rather, is an independent contractor. … While plaintiffs bear the burden of “persuading the court that it has subject matter jurisdiction under the FTCA’s general waiver of immunity,” the government bears the ultimate burden of establishing the applicability of