Case law

Parker North American v. Resolution Trust Corp. (In Re Parker North American Corp.)

148 B.R. 925 · District Court, C.D. California · May 8, 1992

The claims process severely limits the jurisdiction of other courts to review claims other than through the appellate process established in sec. 1821(d)(6). … Therefore PNA does not qualify for the exception.

Orantes-Hernandez v. Holder

713 F. Supp. 2d 929 · District Court, C.D. California · Mar 29, 2010

In Nadarajah , the appeals court quoted a First Circuit opinion concerning the type of “showing that is necessary to establish that qualified counsel was not available.” … There is a clearly articulated, if difficult to apply, standard governing the dissolution of injunctions.

Dimaranan v. Pomona Valley Hospital Medical Center

775 F. Supp. 338 · District Court, C.D. California · Oct 21, 1991

Language was clearly never the central focus of management, and Tagalog was, so to speak, merely caught in the cross-fire. … This was clearly a factor in management’s decision to seek the plaintiff’s demotion.

In Re Sun World Intern., Inc.

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. … [and be admissible as an immigrant]. 8 U.S.C. § 1160 (a). [2] The district court had held that "only" H-2 workers qualified for section 3121(b)(1).

Innovation Technologies Partners LP v. Hulu, LLC

District Court, C.D. California · May 15, 2026

Disclosure or Discovery Material 8 that qualifies for protection under this Order must be clearly so designated before the 9 … interrogatory responses or expert reports) 9 10 qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected 11

United States v. Bobzien

306 F. Supp. 1272 · District Court, C.D. California · Dec 8, 1969

The rule is well established that a procedural error by the Board which does not prejudice the registrant does not invalidate the notice for induction. Edwards v. United States, 395 F.2d 453, 455-458 ; Yaich v. … In the case at bar, the defendant, on three different occasions, very clearly informed his Local Board that he would no longer cooperate with the Selective Service System.

Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. Aereokiller

115 F. Supp. 3d 1152 · District Court, C.D. California · Jul 16, 2015

robust, geolocation and content protection system, that system: (1) has not been fully developed, (2) makes approximations and compromises that result in access being granted outside of the designated market area, (3) is not immune … The Copyright Office also reasoned that § 111 was “clearly directed at localized retransmission services,” due to the provision that “two or more cable systems in contiguous communities ... operating from one head-end” constitute

Sanderson v. International Flavors & Fragrancies, Inc.

950 F. Supp. 981 · District Court, C.D. California · Jul 11, 1996

Whatever the “common-sense” appeal of this argument, it fails because California law clearly requires expert testimony on causa *986 tion in a case like this. … In Hopkins , the bases of the experts’ opinions included studies done by Dow, “scientific knowledge of silicone’s ability to cause immune disorders as established by animal studies and biophysical data,” studies authored

Ponce v. Construction Laborers Pension Trust for Southern California

582 F. Supp. 1310 · District Court, C.D. California · Mar 21, 1984

Eligibility requirements and benefit levels were neither established nor mandated by the collective bargaining parties. 6. … While the evidence indicates that some increase in the benefit level was warranted, the evidence also demonstrates that the benefit level adopted by defendant Trustees was “more” than adequate and clearly excessive, usually

Kaplan v. Bessent

District Court, C.D. California · Aug 18, 2026

The proponent of jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing subject-matter jurisdiction exists. Chandler v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. … Larochelle and Bessent are dismissed.3 Leave to amend a dismissed complaint should be freely granted unless the complaint clearly could not be saved by any amendment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a); Manzarek v. St.

Flores v. City of San Gabriel

969 F. Supp. 2d 1158 · District Court, C.D. California · Aug 29, 2013

any established and regularly recurring period of work ... ”). … As a result, there is no triable issue of fact as to whether Defendant established a 7(k) exemption.

United States v. Real Property

164 F.R.D. 496 · District Court, C.D. California · Dec 21, 1995

That claim is clearly of no merit. This Court had clear jurisdiction to enter each judgment. Chow cannot bring himself within Rule 60(b)(4). … He merely claims that the issuance of the Circuit Court’s opinion in $4.05,089.23 qualifies him to reopen under Rule 60(b)(5). This claim must also be rejected.

Estate of Nora Vasquez Acebes v. The Residences at Royal Bellingham Inc

District Court, C.D. California · Nov 9, 2022

The defendant seeking removal of an action from state court bears the burden of establishing grounds for federal jurisdiction. Geographic Expeditions, Inc. v. … “Covered countermeasures” include “qualified pandemic or epidemic product,” drugs, biological products, or devices. Id. §§ 247d-6d(i)(1)(A)–(D). There is an exception to the Act’s immunity.

Watson Laboratories, Inc. v. Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Inc.

178 F. Supp. 2d 1099 · District Court, C.D. California · Apr 20, 2001

On the other hand, yet other cases indicate that a qualifying event need not be unforeseeable. … Plaintiffs Motion clearly seeks to narrow the issues in this case on both liability and damages.

Southern California District Council of Laborers & Its Affiliated Local 1184 v. Ordman

318 F. Supp. 633 · District Court, C.D. California · Nov 9, 1970

Clearly, until the first employee was hired, no one was deprived of any rights guaranteed by the Act. … It is well established that the General Counsel has broad discretion in deciding whether a complaint should issue. United Electrical Contractors Ass’n v. Ordman, 366 F.2d 776 (2d Cir. 1966).

Hagan v. Tirado

896 F. Supp. 990 · District Court, C.D. California · Aug 17, 1995

The burden then shifts to the non-moving party to establish, beyond the pleadings, that there is a genuine issue for trial. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324 , 106 S.Ct. at 2553 . … Accordingly, it is unnecessary to determine whether defendant had qualified immunity at the time plaintiff was placed in protective custody.

Bruno v. Quten Research Institute, LLC

280 F.R.D. 524 · District Court, C.D. California · Nov 14, 2011

Co., 552 F.3d 934, 939 (9th Cir.2008) (misleading claims on a food’s label were not immunized by contrary information in fine print); see Weston Deck, Ex. A at 1 (image of the label at issue). … Akeena Solar, Inc., 274 F.R.D. 259, 267 (N.D.Cal.2011) (“Given that the threshold of knowledge required to qualify a class representative is low; a class representative will be deemed inadequate only if ‘startlingly unfamiliar

Sarei v. Rio Tinto PLC.

221 F. Supp. 2d 1116 · District Court, C.D. California · Jul 9, 2002

“[T]he Supreme Court has clearly and unambiguously established that courts should offer greater deference to the selection of a U.S. forum by U.S. resident plaintiffs when evaluating a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens … The Ninth Circuit itself did not decide the question, as it concluded that defendants' conduct constituted torture, which did violate clearly established international law.

John GD Doe, a minor, by and through his Guardian ad litem, Jane SM Doe, an individual v. Newport Mesa Unified School District, a local public entity; Rigo Pinon, an individual; and Does 1-100, inclusive

District Court, C.D. California · May 26, 2026

:7–16:5. 1 Defendants’ argument relies, in part, on the district court case Petaluma I, 2 whereas the qualified immunity case that Doe avers is irrelevant is Doe ex rel. 3 Doe … immunity. 11 [Defendant] appeals from the order denying qualified immunity.”).

Taylor v. SmithKline Beecham Corp.

629 F. Supp. 2d 1032 · District Court, C.D. California · Jun 26, 2009

or may become qualified because of your education, training and experience (GSK 015.) … However, neither SmithKline nor Hartford ever clearly notified Plaintiff of its underlying reason for denial.