Case law

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.

Madrigal v. Allstate Insurance Co.

215 F. Supp. 3d 870 · District Court, C.D. California · May 19, 2016

Furthermore, where facts are disputed, “expert testimony is competent to establish whether a particular contract meets particular industry criteria and to establish the meaning of technical terms used in insurance industry … According to Allstate, the evidence clearly established that if Allstate, had accepted the demand, it would not have resulted in a legally enforceable agreement to release Mrs. Tang. (New Tr. Motion at 20).

AMCO Insurance Company v. Cameron Kiefer

District Court, C.D. California · Feb 18, 2022

The moving party has the initial burden of establishing the absence of a material fact for trial. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256. … This easily qualifies as conspicuous, plain, and clear to the layperson. Thus, the Defendants may be charged with constructive knowledge of the liability limits as written in the Policy.

Michael V. Mcroyal v. Andrew Saul

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

He “clearly socialized with others and had 23 emotional support he could trust,” the ALJ concluded. … Mehta 15 did qualify as a treating source and had regularly treated 16 Plaintiff, the ALJ still would not have erred.

Skanda Group of Industries, LLC. v. Capital Health Partner, LLC

District Court, C.D. California · Dec 21, 2020

For this reason, establishing general jurisdiction is a high bar. … the answer clearly is that it cannot.”).

Humanitarian Law Project v. Gonzales

380 F. Supp. 2d 1134 · District Court, C.D. California · Jul 25, 2005

Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have sufficiently established standing to assert a vagueness challenge. 3 B. … The result would be different if the term “training” were qualified to include only military training or training in terrorist activities. HLP I, 205 F.3d at 1138 .

Hernandez v. Martel

824 F. Supp. 2d 1025 · District Court, C.D. California · Aug 16, 2011

probative value that clearly outweighs its inherent prejudicial effect.” … Petitioner has failed to establish either.

Jose Morales v. Robert Burton

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

as “clearly established federal law” for the purposes of federal review under AEDPA. … The Court is not aware of any clearly established federal law with a holding similar to that of In re Palmer. See Navarro v. Gipson, No. EDCV 21-1529-SB (PLA), 2021 WL 4263171, at *2 (C.D. Cal.

Lisa Michael v. Blue Cross of California

District Court, C.D. California · Aug 7, 2020

Although a preemption defense may 17 not ordinarily give rise to removal jurisdiction, it does in this instance as “Congress 18 has clearly manifested an intent to make such causes of action within the scope of the 19 … Goesling, which held the Idaho 19 charter schools could not bring a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against the state because 20 they were expressly defined as government entities, and as such, “ha[d] no privileges 21 or immunities

Healthvana, Inc. v. Telebrands Corp.

District Court, C.D. California · Feb 23, 2022

Counsel have an obligation to lay out their 14] support clearly. Carmen v. San Francisco Sch. Dist., 237 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2001). … Healthvana contends, correctly, that 17 goods need not directly compete with one another to qualify as 18 “related.”

Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Retirement System v. Ixia

50 F. Supp. 3d 1328 · District Court, C.D. California · Oct 6, 2014

First, “the confidential witnesses whose statements are introduced to establish scienter must be described with sufficient particularity to establish their reliability and personal knowledge.” … First, the confidential witnesses whose statements are introduced to establish scienter must be described with sufficient particularity to establish their reliability and personal knowledge.

FT Travel-New York, LLC v. Your Travel Center, Inc.

112 F. Supp. 3d 1063 · District Court, C.D. California · Jun 26, 2015

Purcell Associates, 1990 WL 106793 at *2 (“Here, certain material terms were clearly lacking, such as the quantity of entertainers Purcell was to provide, as well as the duration of Purcell’s provision of ser vices during … Although defendants do'not directly make the argument in their motion, they appear to contend that the first, clause of paragraph 5 merely qualifies the second clause, i.e., that it does not create a contractual guaranty

Xsolla (USA), Inc. v. Aghanim Inc.

District Court, C.D. California · Sep 10, 2024

Each of these allegations is 1 “clearly based on the same nucleus of operative facts as the CUTSA claim.” 2 Deerpoint Grp., Inc. v. Agrigenix, LLC, 345 F. Supp. 3d 1207, 1238 (E.D. … (Mot. 19.) 14 To establish standing under the UCL, a plaintiff must “(1) establish a loss or 15 deprivation of money or property sufficient to qualify as injury in fact, i.e., economic

Orantes-Hernandez v. Gonzales

504 F. Supp. 2d 825 · District Court, C.D. California · Jul 24, 2007

It concluded, however, that Judge Kenyon did not clearly err when he found “a pattern of interference with the class members’ right to apply for asylum.” … This does not immunize the DHS from injunctions or judicial oversight, however, as Judge Kenyon’s order and the Ninth Circuit decision affirming it demonstrate.

Devin Lee Rintye v. Warden of California Health Care Facility

District Court, C.D. California · Jan 19, 2022

Petitioner subsequently filed a motion to withdraw his plea, which the trial court denied for failure to establish good cause. (Id.). … The Petition does not clearly assert facts showing that Petitioner is actually innocent of his crimes of conviction.

Ana Areopaja v. Morrison Management Specialists Inc

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

Toushin’s role qualifies her 24 as a manager, she has not raised a genuine issue of 25 material fact as to whether Ms. … This clearly shows that Ms. Toushin was 11 not so substantially involved in Defendants’ business so 12 as to be considered an officer, director, or managing 13 agent.

David Fawcett v. Ford Motor Company

District Court, C.D. California · Sep 21, 2023

or engage in guesswork” to ascertain removability, the statute nonetheless 16 “requires a defendant to apply a reasonable amount of intelligence” in making the 17 determination, for example, by “[m]ultiplying figures clearly … See 17 Kuxhausen, 707 F.3d at 1141-42 (demand letter sent after case filed can qualify as “other 18 paper” triggering 30-day period); 8/29 Maclear Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. 1.

Maria F. Torres v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group

District Court, C.D. California · Jun 13, 2022

This distinguishability does not resolve the ultimate question of when Defendants should remove or should have removed – either upon receipt of the summary judgment opposition, which clearly qualifies as an “other paper … Plaintiff countered that Busalacchi clearly referenced the CBA and lack of progressive discipline, and Defendants “knew the issue would arise.”

WildEarth Guardians v. David Bernhardt

District Court, C.D. California · Dec 16, 2020

The deliberative process privilege is qualified and limited. See 19 FTC v. Warner Commc’ns Inc., 742 F.2d 1156, 1161 (9th Cir. 1984). … Defendants “must make a specific 4 showing establishing the application of a privilege for each document that it contends 5 that it may withhold based on privilege.”

DeVante Jefferson v. Alex Villanueva

District Court, C.D. California · Feb 4, 2020

Aug. 22, 2017). 22 To state a claim for violation of Title II of the ADA, a plaintiff must show that 23 (1) he is a qualified individual with a disability; (2) he was excluded from participation 24 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).