Case law

In Re Korean Air Lines Co., Ltd. Antitrust Litigation

567 F. Supp. 2d 1213 · District Court, C.D. California · Jul 23, 2008

However, the term “air carrier” is not immune to a construction that would include “foreign air carriers.” … The court concluded that “[t]he preemption provisions of the ADA clearly apply to foreign air carriers.” Id. at 718 .

Quintana v. Gate

88 F. Supp. 3d 1102 · District Court, C.D. California · Feb 13, 2015

More specifically, Petitioner claims that specific performance is a constitutional right clearly established in Santobello v. … established federal law.

Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana

928 F. Supp. 1494 · District Court, C.D. California · Nov 22, 1995

Thus, while all 72 candidates on the eligibility list were technically considered "qualified” for promotion (i.e., could be considered for the promotion), an applicant’s placement on the eligibility list clearly determined … It appears that the in-service requirement would qualify as such a barrier, since non-SAPD officers were eliminated from the qualified applicant pool. 8 .

Thomas v. Baca

231 F.R.D. 397 · District Court, C.D. California · May 17, 2005

Clearly, these class members have standing to pursue injunctive relief. See Payton v. … It does not appear that any informal resolution of this motion is possible: the plaintiffs clearly seek Rule 23 certification and the defendants clearly oppose such an action.

Donna Haas v. Travelex Insurance Services Inc.

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

If only a portion or portions of the 27 material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly 1 identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the 2 margins). … If only a 12 portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing 13 Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate 14 markings in the margins

Villegas v. the Pep Boys Manny Moe & Jack of Cal.

551 F. Supp. 2d 982 · District Court, C.D. California · May 6, 2008

Applying Auer deference, the DOL’s interpretation of 29 C.F.R. 2510.3 — 1(b) in the Denny’s opinion is not clearly erroneous nor inconsistent with the regulation. … While a separate fund paying vacation benefits does not by itself establish an ERISA plan, as recognized by the DOL in the Denny’s opinion, this type of arrangement serves to distinguish a fund that might qualify as an ERISA

Durham v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America

236 F. Supp. 3d 1140 · District Court, C.D. California · Feb 15, 2017

Thus, Plaintiff clearly has not established the absence of a genuine dispute as to whether the plan at issue is church plan; to the contrary,’ the evidence submitted heavily suggests that the plan is, not a church plan. … These exemptions assume that the plan otherwise qualifies as an “employee benefit plan”; they then add additional facts to establish that the plan is nonetheless not subject to ERISA.

Clorox Co. v. Inland Empire Wholesale Grocers, Inc.

874 F. Supp. 1065 · District Court, C.D. California · Mar 3, 1994

Blue Cross contends that it is not a counterfeiter; rather, it is a legitimate well-established business which manufactures generic products. … Blue Cross has not established that a pattern of abusive conduct exists here.

Atkins v. Davison

687 F. Supp. 2d 964 · District Court, C.D. California · Dec 1, 2009

The dicta in Biggs is not clearly established law as set forth by the United States Supreme Court. … Therefore, the state court’s decision was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.”).

Vargas v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.

30 F. Supp. 3d 945 · District Court, C.D. California · Jul 15, 2014

As the successor trustee, WTNA qualifies as a new creditor under TILA. See Vogan, 2011 WL 5826016 at *4. … Although there is a current split among district courts regarding whether a plaintiff must plead actual damages to establish liability for a § 1641(g) violation, it is well established in the Central District of California

Kenfort Robin Williams v. The People et al

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

He alleges that the government failed 2 to establish a “mental illness” that would cause him to be a “threat to the safety” of 3 himself or others. … Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325. 14 Furthermore, Rule 8 requires that a complaint clearly establish the claims and parties 15 such that a defendant would have “no difficulty in responding to the claims with an 16 answer and

ACCURATE SURGICAL & v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

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

The parties’ mere 3 designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not— 4 without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the 5 material sought to be filed under … If 19 only a portion of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party 20 also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate 21 markings in the margins).

Ingram v. Martin Marietta Long Term Disability Income Plan for Salaried Employees of Transferred GE Operations

36 F. Supp. 2d 1190 · District Court, C.D. California · Feb 25, 1999

Nevertheless, the testing clearly established that the option or choice of performing a large number of residual occupational opportunities remains with Mr. … This would appear to confirm the need for the Western immune blot test. Dr. Kwako fails to address that this test was not given. .

Velikanov v. Union Security Insurance

626 F. Supp. 2d 1039 · District Court, C.D. California · Jun 15, 2009

Shemer was not established in the MRI scan and that Dr. Duncan’s diagnosis of meralgia paresthetica should be given more weight. Id. … A district court may, in its discretion, consider new evidence that was not before the plan administrator “only when circumstances clearly establish that additional evidence is necessary to conduct an adequate de novo review

Onelum v. Best Buy Stores L.P.

948 F. Supp. 2d 1048 · District Court, C.D. California · May 30, 2013

The Court dismissed plaintiffs claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress because the plaintiff had not shown the requisite “outrageousness” to qualify for that tort claim, not because of managerial privilege. … A state court could possibly find that Plaintiff has established a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress. See, e.g., Alcorn v.

AAI Services, Inc. v. United States

217 B.R. 281 · District Court, C.D. California · Jan 27, 1998

STANDARD OF REVIEW The Court reviews Bankruptcy Court orders under the clearly erroneous standard for factual determinations and de novo for conclusions of law. … Special Agricultural Workers The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) established an amnesty program for illegal aliens working in the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1160 .

Zhongtie Dacheng (Zhuhai) Investment Management Co Ltd v. Yan

District Court, C.D. California · Oct 3, 2024

The 1 or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL-AEO” does not—without the submission of 2 competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed 3 under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged … If only a portion of the material 9 on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the 10 protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins).

Fanimal, Inc. v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. and Ticketmaster LLC

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

If only a portion of 14 the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly 15 identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the 16 margins). … If only a 8 portion of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also 9 must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings 10 in the margins).

Federal Sav. and Loan Ins. Corp. v. Sajovich

642 F. Supp. 74 · District Court, C.D. California · Feb 20, 1986

Clearly, had Congress intended the proviso to restrict agency jurisdiction as well, it would have so provided. … This apparent ambiguity is eliminated by the very fact that agency jurisdiction is immune from the impact of the proviso.

Diaz v. Federal Express Corp.

373 F. Supp. 2d 1034 · District Court, C.D. California · Jun 21, 2005

Whether Plaintiff Is a Qualified Individual Is a Question of Fact Under the ADA, a disabled individual must establish that he is “qualified” for the job in question. See 42 U.S.C. § 12112 (a). … Thus, while subdivision (m) does not make reference to a plaintiff's occupational qualifications, the statute as a whole clearly institutes a requirement that a plaintiff be qualified.