Case law

David Lew v. The City of Los Angeles

District Court, C.D. California · Aug 31, 2021

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants ordered the removal without having 7 “qualified or authorized representatives to oversee and manage the art removal … However, the court notes that there are no allegations clearly setting 16 forth the nature of the objects before or after Plaintiff completed his creation.2 17 The court finds that, although the allegations are

Etiwanda School District v. D. P.

District Court, C.D. California · Jan 11, 2024

The IDEA requires that states and local educational agencies (“LEAs”) that receive IDEA funds offer a FAPE to students who have qualifying disabilities. Fry v. Napoleon Community Schls., 580 U.S. 154 (2017). … establishes that Defendant did not require goals in [praxis/motor planning and social participation] because they were not necessary to receive a FAPE based on Defendant’s unique needs.”

Eric Jerome Phillips Jr. v. County of Riverside

District Court, C.D. California · Oct 22, 2020

Allegations of random acts or isolated events are 9 insufficient to establish a municipal custom. … Plaintiff should clearly specify which claims 5 are being asserted against which specific Defendant. Plaintiff strongly is 6 encouraged to keep his statements concise and to omit irrelevant details.

Govinda Multani v. Century Theatres, Inc.

District Court, C.D. California · Jul 9, 2024

“The 13 language of § 1447(e) is couched in permissive terms and clearly gives the district court the 14 discretion to deny joinder.” Newcombe v. … “While there is no bright line rule as to what qualifies as timely, courts consider the 26 amount of time that has lapsed since removal, the progress of the case, and how much time has 27 passed since opposing counsel

Michelle Leann Paxton v. Kilolo Kijakazi

District Court, C.D. California · Nov 27, 2020

Administrative Evaluation of Disability Claims 7 To qualify for disability benefits, a claimant must show that she is unable 8 “to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically … An ALJ must clearly identify each subjective 15 || statement being rejected and the particular evidence in the record which 16 || purportedly undermines the statement.

Metricolor, LLC v. L Oreal S.A.

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

Metricolor fail[ed] to clearly show that there is a ‘reasonable probability’ that its requested jurisdictional discovery would have yielded facts sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction.” … “Information qualifies as a trade secret under federal and state law if ‘the information derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable through

Eric Jerome Phillips Jr. v. County of Riverside

District Court, C.D. California · Jul 24, 2020

claims and dismiss any complaint, or any portion thereof, that is: (1) frivolous or 25 malicious, (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or (3) seeks 26 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … “While the circumstances of institutional life 6 demand that privacy be limited, it is clearly established that gratuitous invasions of 7 privacy violate the Fourteenth Amendment.”

Vilma Martinez v. Andrew Saul

District Court, C.D. California · Apr 6, 2021

The 7 Commissioner has the burden of proof at step five – i.e., establishing that the 8 claimant could perform other work in the national economy. Id. 9 B. … An ALJ must clearly identify each subjective 19 statement being rejected and the particular evidence in the record which 20 purportedly undermines the statement. Treichler, 775 F.3d at 1103 (citation 21 omitted).

Melynda Gionnette v. Kilolo Kijakazi

District Court, C.D. California · Mar 29, 2022

The 3 || Commissioner has the burden of proof at step five — 7.e., establishing that the 4 || claimant could perform other work in the national economy. Id. 5 B. … An ALJ must clearly identify each subjective 15 || statement being rejected and the particular evidence in the record which 16 || purportedly undermines the statement.

Castel S.A. v. Christopher A. Wilson

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

The burden of establishing the absence of a 10 genuine issue of material fact lies with the moving party, see Celotex Corp. v. … Castel continues to overlook this critical qualifier. 25 Instead, Castel argues that Cheng’s role as the “central figure who orchestrated 26 the entire sale of AIT’s assets” and her “central involvement acting on

United States ex rel. Modglin v. DJO Global Inc.

48 F. Supp. 3d 1362 · District Court, C.D. California · Sep 2, 2014

Consequently, defendants argue, their stimulators qualify for Medicare coverage if they are not otherwise excluded as unreasonable or unnecessary. - For this reason, they maintain, their reimbursement claims are not false … Relators did not clearly plead such a theory in their second amended complaint, and none of their briefs other than the supplemental brief addressed it.

United States v. Mason Howard Harkness

District Court, C.D. California · Aug 31, 2022

1993) (“Many cases have held that dual criminality is satisfied even though the names 24 of the crimes and the required elements were different in the two countries.”). 25 Therefore, all of the foregoing offenses qualify … Rather, the Court must determine 25 whether any competent evidence establishes probable cause. 26 Id.

Blackbelt Smartphone Defence Ltd. v. Phonecheck Solutions, LLC

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

The parties’ mere designation 12 of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not—without the 13 submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material 14 sought to be filed under … Except as otherwise provided in 5 this Order, or as otherwise stipulated or ordered, disclosure or discovery Material that 6 qualifies for protection under this Order must be clearly so designated before the 7 material

John Baleja v. Northrop Grumman Space and Mission Systems Corp. Salaried Pension Plan

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

to prevent any 4 such duplication except to the extent that benefits with 5 respect to him under such other plan are appropriately 6 reduced or are stated or clearly … As stated above, the Court finds that the 1985 Plan provided for an ESL 21 Offset; there is no evidence to establish that the Plan was later amended to 22 then introduce an ESL Offset.

Careco, LLC v. Miguel Solorio

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

This strong “presumption against removal jurisdiction means that ‘the defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper.’” Id. … In making the reasonableness determination, courts should look at whether the removing party’s arguments are “clearly foreclosed” by the relevant case law. Lussier v.

Denise S. v. George Foreman

District Court, C.D. California · Oct 15, 2024

Although it is not clear whether the doctrine is applicable here and 6 the Court makes no finding on this issue, the Court notes that this at least one circumstance in which 7 a plaintiff is allowed to “seek damages for clearly … Although Nevada law immunized tavern 15 keepers from civil liability for the negligent acts of their patrons, California had no such protections. 16 Id.

Audrey Heredia v. Sunrise Senior Living LLC

District Court, C.D. California · Dec 12, 2019

Except as otherwise provided in this 19 Order, or as otherwise stipulated or ordered, Disclosure of Discovery Material that 20 qualifies for protection under this Order must be clearly so designated before the 21 material … If only a portion of the material 28 on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party must clearly identify the 1 protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins).

John I. Beeler v. Nancy A. Berryhill

District Court, C.D. California · May 14, 2020

Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). 21 || The Commissioner has the burden of proof at step five —i.e., establishing that the 22 || claimant could perform other work in the national economy. … An ALJ must clearly identify each subjective 2 || statement being rejected and the particular evidence in the record which 3 || purportedly undermines the statement.

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Criterion Wealth Management Insurance Services, Inc.

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

Therefore, it is not 23 surprising that Defendants are able to marshal a significant amount of evidence and 24 arguments to support their contentions that they qualify as broker-dealers under the 25 SEC guidance. … By failing to disclose this information when it was clearly known to them 8 and clearly material to investors’ decisions, Gravette and MacArthur breached their 9 fiduciary duties to their clients.8 (Client Letter 2–3

Reyes Alvarez v. Albertsons LLC, et al.

District Court, C.D. California · Mar 31, 2026

See Renteria- 11 Hinojosa, 150 F.4th at 1090–91 (finding that conclusory arguments fail to establish that 12 the claims are preempted). … When considering whether a 10 reasonable basis existed for removal, courts consider whether the removing party’s 11 arguments are “clearly foreclosed” by relevant case law. See Lussier v.