Case law

Marilyn Gladle v. U. S. Department of Veterans Affairs

District Court, C.D. California · Aug 17, 2020

Cal. 1996) (finding that the Postal service, as a Federal agency, enjoyed immunity from punitive damages claims brought pursuant to the Rehabilitation Act). … The VA is a federal agency within the meaning of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, and therefore enjoys immunity from punitive damages claims under the Rehabilitation Act.

Daniel Draney v. Westco Chemicals, Inc.

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

Even if one or more of these events 5 qualifies as an underlying violation that could theoretically trigger the start of a new 6 limitations period, the triggering of any such period would not operate to revive a claim … This evidence 27 establishes the first prong—that Ibarra knew that Defendants “ha[d] acted.”

Gyro Engineering Corp. v. United States

276 F. Supp. 454 · District Court, C.D. California · Oct 19, 1967

Circuit as follows: “The purpose of the statute is to relieve the taxpayer of unanticipated *473 tax liability arising from involuntary condemnation of his property, by freeing him from such liability to the extent that he re-establishes … Thus Gyro’s acquisition of the properties transferred on January 1, 1959 does not qualify for nonrecognition treatment under the terms of § 1033(a) (3) (A) (ii) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.

Erica Barrett v. Andrew Saul

District Court, C.D. California · Jan 12, 2021

The Commissioner has the burden 25 of proof at step five – i.e., establishing that the claimant could perform other work in 26 the national economy. … However, throughout the 4 decision, the ALJ clearly and specifically reviewed and assessed the evidence and 5 opinions related to plaintiff’s mental impairments.

Top Rank, Inc. v. Ortiz (In Re Ortiz)

400 B.R. 755 · District Court, C.D. California · Jan 21, 2009

The district court must accept the bankruptcy court’s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. … See Camco, Inc., 113 Nev. at 520 , 936 P.2d 829 (considering the fact that “Cameo had no customer contacts or good will established in Bullhead City and had not signed a lease or begun construction of a store in that area

Melanie Lynn Lassen v. Andrew Saul

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

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. … An ALJ must clearly identify each subjective 6 || statement being rejected and the particular evidence in the record which 7 || purportedly undermines the statement.

Duane Cameron v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada

District Court, C.D. California · Nov 2, 2022

Lee, while classifying 8 chest pain as an “[i]nactive [p]roblem[],” clearly deferred the work stress-related 9 issues to Dr. Klein. (AR 245-246.) It is equally clear that Dr. … This establishes the end date of Plaintiff’s 15 entitlement to benefits. 16 Overall, Dr.

Joseph Nichols III v. Christian Pfeiffer

District Court, C.D. California · Aug 26, 2019

Sept. 19, 2012) (“there is no clearly established right to counsel at 5 parole suitability hearings”), certificate of appealability denied, No. 12-17220 (9th 6 Cir. Oct. 28, 2016). … Success on petitioner’s claim that he is elderly parole qualified would not 6 necessarily lead to an immediate or earlier release from confinement. See Nettles 7 v.

In re Toys "R" US-Delaware, Inc.

295 F.R.D. 438 · District Court, C.D. California · Jan 17, 2014

Declarations regarding the prevailing market rate in the relevant community suffice to establish a reasonable hourly rate. See Widrig v. … Id. at 285 , 109 S.Ct. 2463 (“Clearly, a ‘reasonable attorney’s fee’ cannot have been meant to compensate only work performed personally by members of the bar.

Bobby Nash v. California Department of Correction Rehabilitation

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

See Shannon, 410 F.3d at 1088-89 (“If a 3 change in (or clarification of) state law, by a state court, in a case in which [the 4 petitioner] was not a party, could qualify as a ‘factual predicate,’ then the term 5 ‘ … If 17 Petitioner disputes that this action is untimely, he must explain clearly and in 18 detail why it is not untimely, and provide any available competent evidence 19 that establishes the timeliness of this action

Ana M. L. v. Bisignano

District Court, C.D. California · Sep 24, 2025

However, temporary improvement does not 16 preclude the possibility that Plaintiff was “was disabled for a qualifying portion of the 17 time from [her] alleged onset date, even if not for the full period.” … Regarding Plaintiff’s 4 shoulder, the ALJ acknowledged Plaintiff’s reduced strength, flexion and abduction in 5 2017; impingement, diminished range of motion and tenderness in 2017; and imaging 6 from 2018 establishing

Faramarz Naeim v. Robert L. Wilkie

District Court, C.D. California · Mar 11, 2022

Counsel have an obligation to lay out their support clearly. Carmen v. San Francisco Sch. Dist., 237 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2001). … With respect to the second element, there is no dispute that Plaintiff was terminated, which qualifies as an adverse employment action. See Fonseca v.

Merary Abigail Suazo v. Andrew Saul

District Court, C.D. California · Jul 15, 2020

If the 13 claimant meets this burden, a prima facie case of disability is established. Id. … Alpern again examined plaintiff for a “Panel Qualified Medical Re- 13 evaluation.” [Id. at 716-20.] Dr.

In Re: Even St. Productions Ltd.

District Court, C.D. California · Aug 6, 2020

In re Charter Co., 913 F.2d 1575, 1579 (11th Cir. 1990) (“Turnover proceedings are not to be used to liquidate disputed contract claims . . . .Clearly, Congress envisioned the turnover provision of [Section] 542 of the … Her claim qualified as a contingent, equitable interest . . . that could not ripen into a vested property interest—i.e. a tangible asset—until entry of a judgment of divorce.” 628 F.3d at 641.

Marcus Gray v. Katy Perry

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

It is plaintiffs’ burden to establish the protected elements of their allegedly infringed work. … The jury’s damages award in this case is not so clearly unsupported by substantial evidence as to warrant vacatur.

Marcus Gray v. Katy Perry

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

It is plaintiffs’ burden to establish the protected elements of their allegedly infringed work. … The jury’s damages award in this case is not so clearly unsupported by substantial evidence as to warrant vacatur.

Kevin Darnell Bryant v. Raybon C. Johnson

District Court, C.D. California · Sep 25, 2023

, 13 and is required to dismiss the case at any time it concludes the action is frivolous 14 or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks 15 monetary relief against a defendant who is immune … Wolff established five constitutionally-mandated procedural requirements 22 || for such disciplinary proceedings.

Vivek Shah v. Capital One, N.A.

District Court, C.D. California · May 7, 2026

However, as this Court has already 28 1 established, futility is not a dispositive factor. See id. at 5–6. … Capital One argues that all three theories fail because 12 Shah’s loss of his rewards points and access to his card’s benefits do not qualify as breach-of- 13 contract damages, and because Shah’s loss of use of his own

Henry Corlew v. Superior Duct Fabrication, Inc.

District Court, C.D. California · Dec 21, 2022

That interpretation, clearly, is now incompatible with the Ninth Circuit’s guidance, and can offer little instruction as to how the Court should view a similar statutory provision at this juncture.”). … Accordingly, the Court concludes that the number of CBAs that may come into play here is not sufficient to establish LMRA preemption and federal jurisdiction. F.

Araceli Saldana De Gomez v. Kilolo Kijakazi

District Court, C.D. California · Sep 28, 2023

Defendant has a point; certainly plaintiff’s argument could have been more clearly 27 articulated. … Colvin, 19 759 F.3d 995, 1015 (9th Cir. 2014) (steroid shots generally do not qualify as 20 conservative treatment).