Case law

In re Conagra Foods, Inc.

302 F.R.D. 537 · District Court, C.D. California · Aug 1, 2014

To be typical, a class representative need not prove that she is immune from any possible defense, or that her claim will fail only if every other class member’s claim also fails. … Plaintiffs do not clearly indicate which, if any, of these approaches they favor, although certain of their comments suggest they believe a single trial would be workable.

Chamberlain v. Pliler

307 F. Supp. 2d 1128 · District Court, C.D. California · Feb 9, 2004

A state court decision is “contrary to” clearly established federal law if the decision either applies a rule that contradicts the governing Supreme Court law, or reaches a result that differs from the result the Supreme … Accordingly, the Court has no basis for finding or concluding that the California courts’ rejection of petitioner’s claim either was contrary to or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law,

Jesse Washington v. A. Lakowski

District Court, C.D. California · Aug 22, 2024

In any event, Laskowski is entitled to qualified immunity 2 1 because, as the Magistrate Judge found, Plaintiff fails to establish that Defendant … ’s 2 actions violated a federal right that was clearly established at the time. 3 Claim Five asserts that Defendant Jones violated Plaintiff’s First 4 Amendment right to be free from retaliation by removing him

Monroe v. Pacific Telesis Group Comprehensive Disability Benefits Plan

971 F. Supp. 1310 · District Court, C.D. California · Feb 24, 1997

Hyman specializes in occupational medicine and as such was qualified to assess whether Monroe was disabled. However, Defendant has failed to adequately establish that Dr. … Hyman is not a rheumatologist, and not qualified to make such a diagnosis. As Dr.

Winder v. McMahon

345 F. Supp. 3d 1197 · District Court, C.D. California · Nov 5, 2018

Winder also argues that it was "clearly never adjudicated at the time of the preliminary hearing" that the officers did not use excessive force when they struck him with their batons, and that Deputy Ortiz cannot be immunized … Defendants also argue that Winder's claims are barred by the doctrines of qualified immunity and judicial estoppel.

Moore v. CHRONES

687 F. Supp. 2d 1005 · District Court, C.D. California · Jan 14, 2010

“[I]n the absence of a Supreme Court decision that ‘squarely addresses the issue’ in the case before the state court ..., or establishes a general principle that ‘clearly extends’ to the case,” it cannot be said that clearly … As in Brewer , Petitioner has failed to cite any Supreme Court authority clearly establishing that the trial court’s use of CALJIC No. 17.41.1 amounted to federal constitutional error, and the clearly established precedent

Skot Heckman v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc.

District Court, C.D. California · Jul 3, 2025

If only a portion of the material on a 2 page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the 3 protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). … If only a portion 24 of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly 25 identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the 26 margins).

National Academy of Recording Arts & Sciences, Inc. v. On Point Events, LP.

256 F.R.D. 678 · District Court, C.D. California · Feb 25, 2009

As the Advisory Committee Notes to the 1970 amendment to Rule 26(c) state: “[C]ourts have not given trade secrets automatic and complete immunity against disclosure, but have in each case weighed their claim to privacy against … Syntech (SSPF) Intern., Inc., 242 F.R.D. 552 , 555 n. 4 (C.D.Cal.2007) ("Customer/supplier lists and sales and revenue information qualify as ‘confidential commercial information' " under Rule 26.).

Misra v. Decision One Mortg. Co., LLC

673 F. Supp. 2d 987 · District Court, C.D. California · Jun 23, 2008

Specifically, Plaintiffs’ declarations are sufficient to establish a modest factual showing to support alie *996 gations of consistent treatment of Account Manager IIPs as exempt employees, Defendants’ failure to pay Account … The evidence on the record clearly shows that individuals were employed by Defendants in positions equivalent to “inside” Account Executives prior to November 2006.

Independent Living Center v. City of Los Angeles

973 F. Supp. 2d 1139 · District Court, C.D. California · Sep 19, 2013

The City also argues that a federal right to indemnity or contribution exists because the Rehabilitation Act’s regulations “clearly contemplate the availability of indemnity” claims for governmental entities. … Fujikawa, 871 F.2d 1427, 1432 (9th Cir.1989) (ERISA “establishes remedies for the benefit of the plan.

Lahr v. National Transportation Safety Board

453 F. Supp. 2d 1153 · District Court, C.D. California · Aug 31, 2006

Instead, the requester must “establish a sufficient reason for the disclosure.” Id. … [does not] immunize agency files from scrutiny.” Bristol-Myers Co. v. Fed. Trade Comm’n, 424 F.2d 935, 938 (D.C.Cir.1970).

Troy Group, Inc. v. Tilson

364 F. Supp. 2d 1149 · District Court, C.D. California · Apr 1, 2005

Accordingly, the Court finds that the subject of the September 8 email qualifies as a matter of public interest notwithstanding the fact that Troy’s beneficial shareholders numbered only 1,634. … Both criteria must be met to establish the exception. The Troy Parties have not shown how either criteria is satisfied here.

Wilkey v. Cnty. of Orange

295 F. Supp. 3d 1086 · District Court, C.D. California · Nov 9, 2017

Plaintiff Has Not Established He Is a Qualified Individual With a Disability Plaintiff has not presented sufficient evidence that he is a person with a disability as defined by the ADA. … Plaintiff has failed to establish that he has a physical or mental impairment that qualifies as a disability under the ADA. Plaintiff's alleged disability amounts to three sporadic panic attacks and anxiety.

Grisom v. Logan

334 F. Supp. 273 · District Court, C.D. California · Oct 20, 1971

A conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 requires a purposeful intent to deprive someone of the privileges and immunities of the law. Hoffman v. Halden, 268 F.2d 280 (9th Cir. 1959). … Plaintiffs claimed that the man in the picture was a plainclothesman, but they were unable to offer any evidence to establish this.

California Ex Rel. Lockyer v. Safeway, Inc.

371 F. Supp. 2d 1179 · District Court, C.D. California · May 25, 2005

“[m]ultiemployer bargaining itself is a well-established, important, pervasive method of collective bargaining, offering advantages to both management and labor.” Id. at 240 , 116 S.Ct. 2116 . … "Responsiveness” is not the touchstone of the nonstatutory immunity.

The Travelers Indemnity Company v. Trumpet, Inc.

District Court, C.D. California · May 13, 2020

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

Christopher Barone v. Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department

District Court, C.D. California · Jun 12, 2024

immunity. … County of Los Angeles, 897 F.3d 1067 (9th Cir. 2018), a 17 “reasonable officer would know that fondling a restrained subject’s genitals 18 without justification violates the suspect’s clearly established rights.”

Luke Carlson v. City of Redondo Beach

District Court, C.D. California · May 12, 2022

immunity 7 because there was no clearly established fact-specific precedent at the time of the 8 incident, putting them on notice that their conduct was a constitutional violation. … are nevertheless 25 entitled to summary judgment on the excessive force claim because Plaintiffs have no 26 evidence to support the second step of the qualified immunity analysis: whether 27 clearly established

Webb v. THE HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC.

608 F. Supp. 2d 1218 · District Court, C.D. California · Mar 3, 2009

Hartford did not rely on clearly erroneous findings of fact As a second, independent ground to find that Hartford abused its discretion, Plaintiff argues that Hartford based its denial on several clearly erroneous findings … Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to satisfy her burden to establish that Hartford abused its discretion by basing its denial of her LTD claim on clearly erroneous findings of fact. V.

Network 1 Technologies, Inc. v. Dahua Technology USA Inc.

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

If only a portion of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the 28 1 Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) … If only a portion of the material on a page qualifies 13 for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected 14 portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). 15