Case law

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).

Soba Living LLC v. California Physicians Service

District Court, C.D. California · Mar 2, 2021

This statute “is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction,” and the party seeking removal “bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction.” Ethridge v. … In making this determination, courts should look at whether the removing party’s arguments are “clearly foreclosed” by the relevant case law. Lussier v.

Michael Joseph Metcalf v. Yusen Logistics (Americas) Inc.

District Court, C.D. California · Aug 30, 2021

At best, this alleges only partial citizenship as to YLA, but does not clearly reflect either of the forms of dual citizenship of a corporation for Yusen Japan. … That precedent establishes a requirement that Plaintiff identify a “given workweek” in which he qualified for overtime and was not paid. See Landers v.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Everett Financial Inc.

District Court, C.D. California · Dec 22, 2022

The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or 16 Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not— without the submission of 17 competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under … Mass, indiscriminate, or routinized designations are prohibited. 15 Designations that are shown to be clearly unjustified or that have

Raul Cervantes Valenzuela v. V. Torres

District Court, C.D. California · Dec 5, 2019

and is required to 5 dismiss the case at any time if it concludes the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to 6 state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a 7 defendant who is immune … Thus, Cervantes’s conclusory allegations 14 against defendant Villalobos are insufficient to establish individual liability under 15 Section 1983.

Kevin Deshan Mabry v. L. Newton

District Court, C.D. California · Mar 9, 2020

Complaintprior to ordering service for purpose 9 of determining whether the action is frivolous or malicious; or fails to state a claim 10 on which relief may be granted; or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is 11 immune … Los Angeles, 885 10 F.2d 1439, 1443-44 (9th Cir. 1989) (“Consistent with the commonly understood 11 meaning of custom, proof of random acts or isolated events are insufficient to 12 establish custom.”), overruled

Douglas B. Scott v. Standard Insurance Company

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

likely true” in order to make findings of fact that will be subject to review under a clearly erroneous standard if appealed. Kearney, 175 F.3d at 1095. 2. … Pointing out that there are only 14 of these positions available in Plaintiff’s regional labor market falls short of establishing that the occupation does not exist in the regional labor market or that Plaintiff cannot

Delta V Forensic Engineering, Inc. v. Delta V Biomechanics, Inc.

District Court, C.D. California · Aug 23, 2019

Counsel have an obligation to 4 lay out their support clearly. Carmen v. San Francisco Sch. … Plaintiff hired two experts qualified to provide expert witness 18 services in biomechanics and Plaintiff has begun to offer expert services in that area. 19 Taking this evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff

World Wide Rush LLC v. City of Los Angeles

605 F. Supp. 2d 1088 · District Court, C.D. California · Mar 18, 2009

However, the Fire Department relies on the Department of Building and Safety to determine whether any particular material qualifies as flame resistant. 11 (WWR Suppl. Fasmer Opp. … Clearly, when faced with the City’s assertion that it intends to enforce its regulations, Figueroa does not seek injunctive relief, but instead asks the Court to stay this matter.

Gustafson v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP

294 F.R.D. 529 · District Court, C.D. California · Nov 4, 2013

Plaintiffs do not challenge the validity of this clause but rather argue that their UCL claims are “clearly extra-contractual causes of action” because they “do not arise from the mortgage agreements but rather concern the … (Wyatt Rebuttal Report ¶ C n. 1) But Plaintiff’s expert is not an expert in the law and is not qualified to determine what may be relevant from a legal standpoint. .

Magnivision, Inc. v. Bonneau Co.

33 F. Supp. 2d 1218 · District Court, C.D. California · Oct 13, 1998

Siegel has previously submitted declarations in both the 1991 and 1992 Actions and significantly, he was qualified and admitted as an expert at the trial in the 1992 Action. IY. … Clearly, there can only be an “open *1230 ing” in the hanger if the hanger fully surrounds such opening.

Lori Chavez-Deremer, Secretary of Labor, U.S. Department of Labor v. Coway USA, Inc.

District Court, C.D. California · Dec 22, 2025

To obtain a protective order, the party resisting discovery or seeking 17 limitations must show “good cause” for its issuance by establishing “that a specific 18 prejudice or harm will result” if the protective order … withhold ‘personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which 11 would constitute a clearly

Montoya v. Orange County Sheriff's Department

987 F. Supp. 2d 981 · District Court, C.D. California · Aug 13, 2013

Statements do not qualify as hearsay when they “are not offered for the truth of the matter asserted, but [a]re admitted to establish that the statement was made or to demonstrate the effect the statement had' on the hearer … However, courts “apply this time-honored presumption [against retroactivity] unless Congress has clearly manifested its intent to the contrary.” Hughes Aircraft Co. v. United States ex rel.

Maria Guzman v. Nancy A. Berryhill

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

The ALJ found that Plaintiff met 5 the earnings requirements to qualify for DIB through March 31, 2007, the last date 6 insured (“LDI”). AR 16. … Plaintiff has failed to cite any applicable regulation that is 21 allegedly ambiguous but was interpreted more clearly by POMS DI 25501.380. 22 Because Plaintiff has failed to cite any supporting authority, she fails

United States v. Tracinda Investment Corp.

477 F. Supp. 1093 · District Court, C.D. California · Sep 14, 1979

The evidence clearly has shown that there will be no reasonably probable anticompetitive effects of the acquisition in question. … This healthy competition, and lack of substantial barriers to entry, limit the ability of any company or companies to establish a monopoly or exert market power.

Marlon Coburn v. Nancy A Berryhill

District Court, C.D. California · Aug 14, 2019

Bowen, the Ninth Circuit established that principles of res judicata 11 apply to administrative decisions, although less rigidly than in judicial proceedings. 12 844 F.2d 691, 693 (9th Cir. 1988). … Therefore, the certified earnings record and detailed earnings query 25 both qualify as “new and material” evidence that rebut application of Chavez res 26

Communities for a Better Environment v. Cenco Refining Co.

179 F. Supp. 2d 1128 · District Court, C.D. California · Sep 26, 2001

That Rule clearly provides that an emissions increase occurs if a source’s “potential to emit ” increases with an alteration or modification. … However, this hardly establishes definite plans to restart the facility in the foreseeable future.

Ronette R. Garcia v. Nancy A. Berryhill

District Court, C.D. California · Aug 15, 2019

When reviewing an ALJ’s findings at step 26 || two, the district court “must determine whether the ALJ had substantial evidence 27 || to find that the medical evidence clearly established that [the claimant] did not 28 … An impairment that manifests only some of the criteria, 21 || no matter how severely, does not qualify. Sullivan, 493 U.S. at 530; Tackett, 180 22 || F.3d at 1099.

Keiron M. Elias v. Rosas

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

frivolous 5 1 || or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks 2 || monetary relief against a defendant who is immune … P. 8(d)(1)); (e) set forth 24 clearly the sequence of events giving rise to the claim(s) for relief in sequentially “numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances” (Fed. R.