Case law

Hill v. Opus Corp.

841 F. Supp. 2d 1070 · District Court, C.D. California · Nov 14, 2011

Thompson , however, is clearly inapposite. … The complaint does not clearly delineate which plans were covered by ERISA and which were not.

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”)..

In Re Real Estate Associates Ltd. Partnership Litigation

223 F. Supp. 2d 1109 · District Court, C.D. California · Aug 29, 2002

In order to establish a claim for damages under § 14(a), the plaintiffs must establish: (1) that the Solicitations contained a false or misleading statement of material fact or omission; (2) that the misstatement or omission … The defendants respond that this is simply an error and is clearly nonsensical because REAL III only had $1,440,995 in Soft Notes. 22 .

Manuel Andrade v. Beacon Sales Acquisition, Inc.

District Court, C.D. California · Oct 1, 2019

Plaintiff 27 contends, and the Court agrees, that the FAC clearly established the removability of 1 10 [Notice of Removal, hereinafter “Notice”] ¶¶ 12–33 [Defendants assert that diversity 2 jurisdiction exists solely … Plaintiff has diverse citizenship from Defendants, and records show that Defendant employed well over 100 qualifying class members.

Michele Ammons v. Diversified Adjustment Service, Inc.

District Court, C.D. California · Oct 9, 2019

The court should grant summary judgment against a party who fails to 11 demonstrate facts sufficient to establish an element essential to his case when that 12 party will ultimately bear the burden of proof at trial. … Allan, 91 F.3d 1275, 1279 (9th Cir.1996), and the parties bear the burden to lay out their support 28 clearly, Carmen v. S.F. Unified Sch. Dist., 237 F.3d 1026, 1030 (9th Cir.2001).

Clifford Merlo v. Robert L. Wilkie

District Court, C.D. California · Mar 25, 2022

Merlo the opportunity to clearly dispute asserted facts. … Sadeghi believed the selected candidates were 18 better qualified, demonstrated a desired interest in modern techniques and research 19 that Dr.

AFMS LLC v. United Parcel Service Co.

105 F. Supp. 3d 1061 · District Court, C.D. California · Apr 30, 2015

Jan. 5, 2008) (“Establishing market definition in this case likely requires expert testimony.... … Both cases address the question of standing where the plaintiff offered evidence of a clearly defined cognizable market.

Wonderland Nurserygoods Co Ltd v. Baby Trend, Inc.

District Court, C.D. California · Feb 13, 2023

, or by showing that the evidence on file fails to establish a material issue of fact essential to the patentee’s case.” … The term “specific thing” refers to the tangible article that qualifies for absolute intervening rights.

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

121 F. Supp. 3d 950 · District Court, C.D. California · Feb 12, 2015

These allegations are sufficient at the present stage of the litigation to establish standing as a fiduciary under ERISA § 502(a)(3). … As the Clay-worth court noted, “[w]hile the voters clearly intended to restrict UCL standing, they just as plainly preserved standing for those who had had business dealings with a defendant and had lost money or property

Seyed Hossein Miri v. Pamela Bondi et al.

District Court, C.D. California · Mar 5, 2026

The written memorandum states only “the 4 respondent failed to meet his burden to establish that he is not a flight risk.” Id. … Opposition at 5-7. 14 In particular, Respondents claim that Miri did not provide a declaration setting forth specific facts 15 that clearly show “immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result” “before

Cesar Tomas Avalos v. General Motors LLC

District Court, C.D. California · May 6, 2026

“The party seeking removal bears the burden of establishing 23 federal jurisdiction.” … To 22 qualify, the amended pleading, motion, order, or “other paper” must 23 make the basis for removal “unequivocally clear and certain.” 24 Dietrich, 14 F.4th at 1095.

Rosalba Beltran Quintero v. Frank Bisignano

District Court, C.D. California · Aug 25, 2025

Administrative Evaluation of Disability Claims 8 To qualify for disability benefits, a claimant must show that she is unable 9 || “to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically 10 || … The 8 || Commissioner has the burden of proof at step five — i.e., establishing that the 9 || claimant could perform other work in the national economy. Id. 10 B.

Thyrone Ryan Stewart v. Borders

District Court, C.D. California · Aug 9, 2019

determines that the complaint, or 25 || any portion thereof: (1) is frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief 26 27 28 1 || can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … However, in 7 || April 2019, the California Court of Appeal, applying principles of administrative law, held 8 || that the CDCR regulation establishing the screening process was invalid and ordered that the 9 || plaintiffin

HOLA Community Partners v. SG Blocks, Inc.

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

Judgment on 21 the pleadings is appropriate “when the moving party clearly establishes on the face of 22 the pleadings that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that it is entitled 23 to judgment as a matter … However, 27 SG Blocks fails to establish a basis upon which the Court may properly find the statute 28 of limitations has run.

Clinton Forbel Thinn v. J. Williams

District Court, C.D. California · Sep 24, 2021

The Court references the ECF pagination. 28 1 On the day of the assault, Plaintiff was “clearly … medical needs” 4 include “a medical condition that significantly affects an individual’s daily activities,” and “the 5 existence of chronic and substantial pain”) (citation and internal quotations omitted). 6 To establish

In Re: Jeremy Daniel Kintner

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

The court DECLINES CDTFA’s Request for Judicial Notice as to Exhibit 1 because it is not a public record suitable for judicial notice and does not otherwise qualify for judicial notice. III. … The court determines the bankruptcy court’s finding was not clearly erroneous.

Laura Cyr v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company, an Illinois corporation, and Susan Strickler, an individual

District Court, C.D. California · Jul 15, 2026

On de novo review, the Court may exercise its discretion to consider evidence outside the administrative record “only when circumstances clearly establish that additional evidence is necessary … Br. at 9-10, 23, 29—does not establish that Cyr no longer had an ongoing disability.

Alla Anatolyevna Zorikova v. Kineticflix LLC

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

doctrine does not 6 apply. 7 Zorikova argues—or at least, the Court construes Zorikova’s papers as offering 8 the argument—that the Work qualifies … This 24 exception to the exemption clearly and unquestionably applies to DVDs with 25 interactive features such as the Work at issue.

Mohammed Mousa v. LASD

District Court, C.D. California · Dec 19, 2019

Free Exercise Clause Of The First Amendment 15 "Inmates clearly retain protections afforded by the First Amendment . . . including its 16 || directive that no law shall prohibit the free exercise of religion." … Next, 27 28 the inmate bears the burden of establishing that a prison policy constitutes a substantial burden on that exercise of religion.

U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission v. Talbot

430 F. Supp. 2d 1029 · District Court, C.D. California · Feb 14, 2006

A recent decision from the Southern District of New York illustrates this principle clearly. In United States v. … If no definition is given, non-technical words are to be given their meaning in ordinary speech, unless the context clearly indicates another meaning was intended.