Case law

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.

Seleine v. Fluor Corp. Long-Term Disability Plan

598 F. Supp. 2d 1090 · District Court, C.D. California · Feb 11, 2009

Fluor Corporation (“Fluor”) established and maintains an employee welfare benefit plan governed by ERISA. (AR 765.) 2. … Therefore, to establish total disability within the meaning of the Policy, Seleine must establish both an injury and a resulting incapacity to perform all the material duties of any occupation for which she is qualified.

United States v. CBS, Inc.

103 F.R.D. 365 · District Court, C.D. California · Sep 21, 1984

Thus, Arthur Young & Co. is clearly distinguishable. … The United States enjoys sovereign immunity from the litigation expenses of other parties, except to the extent that such immunity has been explicitly waived by law. See Van Hoomissen v.

Los Angeles Police Protective League v. Gates

579 F. Supp. 36 · District Court, C.D. California · Jan 17, 1984

The balance in this case clearly weighs in favor of the State. The State has a compelling interest in protecting the integrity and efficiency of its police departments. Kelley v. … Second, the order clearly set out the parameters of prohibited discussion. It did not force “men of common intelligence [to] guess at its meaning.” Connally v.

North Atlantic Imports, LLC v. NexGrill Industries, Inc.

District Court, C.D. California · Mar 4, 2020

Except as otherwise provided in this Order (see, e.g., Section 25 B(2)(b) below), or as otherwise stipulated or ordered, Disclosure or Discovery 26 Material that qualifies for protection under this Order must be clearly … constitute a 11 waiver of, or estoppel as to, any such privilege, doctrine, or immunity.

Van v. Plant & Field Service Corp.

672 F. Supp. 1306 · District Court, C.D. California · Nov 6, 1987

generally endorses a broad version of the theory of disparate impact, indeed in some respects one broader than that endorsed by the Supreme Court in Griggs and Albermarle Paper. 14 On the issue of pretext, Albemarle Paper clearly … This approach may be too simplistic. 28 Not all individuals are interested in or qualified for all jobs.

TYR Sport, Inc. v. Warnaco Swimwear, Inc.

709 F. Supp. 2d 802 · District Court, C.D. California · Mar 16, 2010

Although Burden bested Sutton at the Trials, Burden failed to qualify for the Olympics at an international qualifying competition, placing 31st. (Id. ¶¶ 4, 8.) … The article is clearly protected speech.

Sascha B. Koch v. City of Los Angeles et al.

District Court, C.D. California · Mar 17, 2026

Moreover, defendants argue that plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claim fails as a matter of law because Brinkman and Towe are entitled to qualified immunity. … Defendants argue that neither Brinkman nor Towe’s conduct violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right because they “searched the building that was UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Michelle Sterioff v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc.

District Court, C.D. California · Mar 6, 2023

mere designation 19 of Disclosure or Discovery Material as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY 20 CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” does not—without the 21 submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing … If only a portion of the 9 material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly 10 identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the 11 margins).

Anna Sigala v. Oxnard Manor, LP

District Court, C.D. California · Jun 27, 2022

However, as discussed herein, Saldana clearly abrogates Garcia. … “Covered countermeasures” include “qualified pandemic or epidemic 15 product,” drugs, biological products, or devices. Id. §§ 247d-6d(i)(1)(A)–(D). 16 There is, however, an exception to the Act’s immunity.

United States v. Davis

330 F. Supp. 2d 1098 · District Court, C.D. California · Aug 13, 2004

The indictment also charged Defendant with causing “fraudulent FHA-insured loan applications seeking not less than $9 million to be submitted in the names of.. .non-qualifying and straw buyers.” … Defendant moved for an order establishing that the rule announced in Blakely applies to sentencing in this case.

Kevin Dick v. Strike Master Fund V LLC

District Court, C.D. California · Jul 14, 2026

If only a portion or portions of the material on a page 23 qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify 24 the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the 25 margins … If 12 only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for 13 protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected 14 portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the

S.W. v. Cryoport, Inc.

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

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

AKHA LLC v. Pac Dent Inc.

District Court, C.D. California · May 21, 2024

Order must be clearly so designated before the material is disclosed or 15 produced. … This provision is not intended to modify whatever procedure 20 may be established in an e-discovery order that provides for production without prior

Martin v. United States

638 F. Supp. 1220 · District Court, C.D. California · Jul 14, 1986

Defendant, however, has failed to cite case law or demonstrate how mistakes made by Martin’s personal accountant, which were clearly contrary to Martin’s direction, should operate against, or be rectified by, the estate. … The Court held that “[plaintiff] has the burden of establishing that he at least supplied the correct information to his accountant ... and that the incorrect returns were a result of the accountant’s mistakes.”

Mannkind Securities Actions

835 F. Supp. 2d 797 · District Court, C.D. California · Dec 16, 2011

(Id. ¶¶ 70-71); Defendant Richardson’s and Mann’s on June 24, 2010: “But in terms of where we are with the response to the [CRL], there were three areas which I think we’ve shared very clearly in terms of that ... the question … The court therefore held that the affidavit did not qualify as a “written instrument” under Rule 10(c), and granted the motion to strike. Id.

In Re Butler Industries, Inc.

114 B.R. 695 · District Court, C.D. California · May 24, 1990

Trustee) appointed Appellant as the qualified and acting interim Trustee for Debtor’s estate. Immediately following his appointment, the attorneys for creditors B.T. … Appellant argues that the appointment of his firm would save the estate money, but fails to establish in what manner or to what extent.

Ceneen Lazaro Brizuela v. Kilolo Kijakazi

District Court, C.D. California · Oct 25, 2021

McKenna’s opinion; and (3) determining 8 that Plaintiff’s prior jobs qualified as “past relevant work.” See 9 Plaintiff’s Motion, pp. 3-9. … Plaintiff also argues that the ALJ erred in finding that 24 Plaintiff’s prior jobs qualified as past relevant work.

Daniels v. SCME Mortgage Bankers, Inc.

680 F. Supp. 2d 1126 · District Court, C.D. California · Jan 20, 2010

For present purposes, the relevant question is whether the Second Amended Complaint contains sufficient factual material, taken as true, to establish that Plaintiffs loans qualifies as a consumer loan under the Truth in Lending … Because the property at issue was clearly not owner occupied, Plaintiffs loan was not for a personal purpose under TILA and RES-PA.

Denver Rockets v. All-Pro Management, Inc.

325 F. Supp. 1049 · District Court, C.D. California · Mar 22, 1971

Cross-claimant has established a substantial probability of success in the trial on the merits. 4. … “test rounds” in an effort to prove he was qualified for tournament play.