Case law

Gilbert Garcia v. Welltower OpCo Group LLC

District Court, C.D. California · Feb 10, 2021

Once the Secretary has issued a declaration, the PREP Act provides sweeping immunity for certain claims against certain covered individuals: “a covered person shall be immune from suit and liability under Federal and State … The Court need not also consider whether they are also a “qualified person” under the same.

Grupo Gigante SA De CV v. Dallo & Co., Inc.

119 F. Supp. 2d 1083 · District Court, C.D. California · Oct 27, 2000

The Court finds that, in order to establish that a foreign mark is sufficiently famous to qualify for protection in the United States, the foreign user need only show that the mark is sufficiently known to potential customers … The word Gigante, which means giant in Spanish, was clearly not coined for the purpose of designating the plaintiffs’ grocery stores.

Hashim Al Balad Muhammad v. City of Moreno Valley Code Enforcement

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

“It is well 9 established that federal, state, and regional legislators are entitled to absolute 10 immunity from civil liability for their legislative activities.” Bogan v. Scott Harris, 11 523 U.S. 44, 46, 118 S. … Ed. 2d 673 (1980) (municipalities are not 14 entitled to a qualified immunity defense). 15 Accordingly, defendant is not entitled to legislative immunity and the factual 16 allegations

Olivia Van Iderstine v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc.

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

If only a portion of the 3 material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly 4 identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the 5 margins). … If only a portion of the material on a page qualifies for 23 protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) 24 (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins).

Rehrig Pacific Company v. Polymer Logistics (Israel), Ltd.

District Court, C.D. California · Oct 9, 2019

If only a portion of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the 26 Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making 27 appropriate markings in the margins). … If only a portion of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the 11 Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making 12 appropriate markings in the margins).

Burditt v. Western Growers Pension Plan

636 F. Supp. 1491 · District Court, C.D. California · Jun 11, 1986

The assumption that Sun Harvest was scaling down its operations is undisputed and clearly supported by the evidence. … Clearly, after the initial conversion expense, an automated plant is substantially more cost efficient than an non-automated plant.

Guyton v. Novo Nordisk, Inc.

151 F. Supp. 3d 1057 · District Court, C.D. California · Dec 16, 2015

McDonnell Douglas, a refusal to hire case, held- that a plaintiff could establish a prima facie case “by showing (i) that he belonged] to a racial minority; (ii) that he applied and was qualified for a job for which the employer … Prima Facie Case In general, to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under FEHA, a “plaintiff must provide evidence that (1) he was a member of a protected class, (2) he was qualified for the position he sought

Banyard v. Duncan

342 F. Supp. 2d 865 · District Court, C.D. California · Oct 4, 2004

The Court of Appeal’s Decision Involved An Unreasonable Application of Clearly Established Supreme Court Law to the Facts of Banyard’s Case. … The Court of Appeal’s decision to the contrary constituted an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.

California Sea Urchin Commission v. Bean

239 F. Supp. 3d 1200 · District Court, C.D. California · Mar 3, 2017

They ask the Court to hold unlawful and set aside action of the Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”) which, *1203 among other things, eliminated a regulation immunizing fishermen who accidentally harm California sea otters in … “To qualify for standing, a claimant must present an injury that is concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent; fairly traceable to the defendant’s challenged behavior; and likely to be redressed by a favorable ruling

Osny Sorto-Vasquez Kidd v. Chad T. Wolf

District Court, C.D. California · Apr 26, 2021

Qualified Immunity 14 The Officers next contend they are entitled to qualified immunity, insulating 15 them from Kidd’s claims. (Officers’ Mot. 19.) … “The doctrine [of qualified immunity] 16 protects public officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does 17 not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Lindsey v. Craven

365 F. Supp. 948 · District Court, C.D. California · Nov 6, 1973

Thus, it is clearly understandable that the “circumstances” there were such that the petitioner was in no position to contend that his right to a separate hearing had been prejudiced. … Defense counsel objected to the introduction of the confession into evidence on the ground that it was induced by a promise of immunity from other prosecution.

Wayne Taylor III v. Leslie A. Barnett

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

Such 21 conclusory allegations are not sufficient to establish a 22 conspiracy. See Simmons v. Sacramento Cnty. Super. … amended), it clarified in Miller that when individuals 2 “make discretionary decisions and recommendations that are not 3 functionally similar to prosecutorial or judicial decisions, only 4 qualified

Swan Stegemann v. United States District Court for the Central District of California

District Court, C.D. California · Oct 16, 2025

This provision is not intended 1 to modify whatever procedure may be established in an e-discovery order 2 that provides for production … Prior to any discovery-related disclosure or production, the Producing 2 Party may redact information or material that is protected from disclosure 3 by applicable privilege or immunity, that is governed by

California Medical Ass'n v. Douglas

848 F. Supp. 2d 1117 · District Court, C.D. California · Jan 31, 2012

In order to establish standing to assert a claim, a plaintiff must: (1) demonstrate an injury in fact, which is concrete, distinct and palpable, and actual or imminent; (2) establish a causal *1126 connection between the … ’s Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Dunhall Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Discus Dental, Inc.

994 F. Supp. 1202 · District Court, C.D. California · Jan 27, 1998

These cases establish a more broad waiver, finding that, although the state of mind of the client is the issue, the basis and facts surrounding the advice provided by counsel are relevant in the process of investigating that … Evidence in an attorney’s file is not always going to clearly reflect whether its contents were communicated to the client.

United States v. Hunter

70 F. Supp. 2d 1100 · District Court, C.D. California · Sep 24, 1999

Chem-Dyne Corporation, 572 F.Supp. 802 (S.D.Ohio 1983), which established a uniform federal rule allowing for joint and several liability in appropriate CERCLA cases. … The court expressed concern that a rule of joint and several liability would immunize the claimant-PRP from the risk of orphan-share liability and would restrict a court’s ability to apportion costs equitably pursuant to

Lundquist v. Continental Casualty Co.

394 F. Supp. 2d 1230 · District Court, C.D. California · Sep 30, 2005

"Disabiliiy" under the WellPoint STD Plan, in fact, can be met by satisfying either the “Occupation Qualifier” or the "Earnings Qualifier.” (Id.). … However, because both parties concede that plaintiff’s claim arises under the "Occupation Qualifier,” there is no need to discuss or set forth the "Earnings Qualifier” definition here.

Maxon Industries, Inc. v. Dhollandia US, LLC

District Court, C.D. California · Dec 18, 2023

Order must be clearly so designated before the material is disclosed or produced. 8 Designation in conformity with this Order requires: 9 (a) for information in documentary form (e.g., paper … , such 12 production shall in no way prejudice or otherwise constitute a waiver of, or estoppel 13 as to, any such privilege, doctrine, or immunity.

Matthew Gargus v. Uplead, LLC

District Court, C.D. California · Jun 29, 2026

Except as otherwise provided 4 in this Order, or as otherwise stipulated or ordered, Disclosure of Discovery 5 Material that qualifies for protection under this Order must be clearly so 6 designated before the material … If 13 only a portion of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing 14 Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making 15 appropriate markings in the margins).

Brunel v. United States

320 F. Supp. 1257 · District Court, C.D. California · Dec 2, 1970

It clearly appears that Petitioner is entitled to no relief. No hearing is necessary or appropriate. The facts may be briefly stated. … Petitioner was represented thereafter by Barry Tarlow, Esq., an experienced and amply-qualified criminal law attorney, who was also a former Assistant United States Attorney.