Case law

Spann v. J.C. Penney Corp.

314 F.R.D. 312 · District Court, C.D. California · Jan 25, 2016

Zevin in Support of Unopposed Motion for Modification of Class Certification Order; Preliminary Approval of Settlement and Notice Program; and Establishment of Qualified Settlement Fund (“Zevin Deck”) at ¶ 9). … The parties shall establish a Qualified Settlement Fund (“QSF”) in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Heffler is hereby appointed the trustee of the QSF.

The Icon at Panorama, LLC v. Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters

District Court, C.D. California · Jan 31, 2020

If only a portion or portions of the material on a page 18 || qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected 19 || portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins … If only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the

Evon Smith v. Colonial Care Center, Inc.

District Court, C.D. California · Mar 19, 2021

Defendant further argues that Plaintiffs’ allegations that Defendant “failed to protect decedent’s right to dignity and privacy by failing to protect her from infection with the Covid-19 virus”, (Compl. { 92), “clearly … Specifically, where a plaintiff's claim falls within the scope of the PREP Act’s immunity provision, the Act establishes a single “exception to the immunity from suit and liability of covered persons” by way of “an exclusive

Collins v. United States

318 F. Supp. 382 · District Court, C.D. California · Sep 24, 1970

But that one-half does not, and could never, get a stepped-up basis merely as a result of its qualifying for the marital deduction. … None of them establish a rule of law as claimed. All three involve property rather than services. Linde, supra, is a particularly weak reed upon which to lean.

Brenda Thomas v. Pomona Healthcare and Wellness Center

District Court, C.D. California · Mar 22, 2022

“The defendant bears the burden of establishing that removal is proper” and removal statutes are “strictly construed against removal jurisdiction.” Provincial Gov't of Marinduque v. … However, Garcia was clearly abrogated on this issue by the Ninth Circuit in Saldana. See 2022 WL 518989, at *5.? Thus, under explicit binding authority, the PREP Act is not a complete preemption statute. Jd.

Angelica R. Untalan v. Warren A. Stanley

District Court, C.D. California · Aug 2, 2021

Id. 20 Untalan’s right to reclaim the Vehicle has been clearly established since the 21 decisions of Brewster and Sandoval. See id. … Defendants bear the burden to establish immunity. Id. 24 a.

Martin Ventress v. David Kilgore

District Court, C.D. California · Dec 3, 2020

Plaintiff's complaint fails to clearly and concisely allege facts against any of the specifically-named defendants. i Sovereign Immunity — The Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. … The action is clearly barred by sovereign immunity. Criminal Statutes — Federal criminal statutes do not allow for private causes of action by a civil litigant.

Diaz v. Castalan

625 F. Supp. 2d 903 · District Court, C.D. California · Dec 30, 2008

of clearly established federal law.”), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1037 , 125 S.Ct. 814 , 160 L.Ed.2d 602 (2004). … Oct. 23, 2007) (“there is no ‘clearly established’ Supreme Court authority applying Apprendi and its Supreme Court progeny to consecutive sentences”).

Landscape Specialties, Inc. v. Laborers' International Union of North America

477 F. Supp. 17 · District Court, C.D. California · Apr 25, 1979

In other words, under § 8(f), the union is permitted to establish a hiring hall for the employment of workers by the employer. … This holding makes it unnecessary for the court to address the question of whether or not the subcontracting provisions are immune from the antitrust laws under the so-called nonstatutory labor exemption.

Tokio Marine & Fire Ins. Co., Ltd. v. Kaisha

25 F. Supp. 2d 1071 · District Court, C.D. California · Jun 3, 1997

This Himalaya Clause enumerates “Exemptions and Immunities of Agents, Servants, Representatives and Sub-Contractors of the Carrier” providing that: The Carrier shall be entitled to sub-contract on any terms the whole or any … The general rule is that a Himalaya clause must clearly express an intent to extend the carrier’s defenses to the third party claiming its benefits before it will be upheld. See Tessler Brothers (BC) Ltd. v.

Thomas v. Continental Casualty Co.

7 F. Supp. 2d 1048 · District Court, C.D. California · Jan 6, 1998

This Court has held that CNA has discretion in determining whether a claimant is qualified for “other” employment. … The district court should exercise its discretion, however, only when circumstances clearly establish that additional evidence is necessary to conduct an adequate de novo review of the benefits decision.

Safavi v. SBC Disability Income Plan

493 F. Supp. 2d 1107 · District Court, C.D. California · Jun 26, 2007

Under the Plan, “total disability” is defined to mean “you are prevented by illness or injury from engaging in any employment for which you are qualified or may reasonably become qualified for based on education, training … qualified based on training, education and experience as of February 1, 2005.

New.net, Inc. v. Lavasoft

356 F. Supp. 2d 1071 · District Court, C.D. California · Nov 6, 2003

Indeed, New.net does not establish that any currently distributed version of Ad-Aware causes connectivity problems. 10 c. … For more than thirty years, it has been established that allegations of falsity are insufficient to warrant prior restraint.

Lewert v. Boiron, Inc.

212 F. Supp. 3d 917 · District Court, C.D. California · May 12, 2016

Kurdista-ni is unqualified to offer an opinion in this case and because, even if he were qualified, Dr. … Kurdistani’s deposition testimony cited in Defendants’ Motion does not definitively establish that Dr.

Noguera v. Davis

290 F. Supp. 3d 974 · District Court, C.D. California · Nov 17, 2017

Noone told the jury that she had been granted immunity from prosecution by the People. … Petitioner's claim lacks support in clearly established federal law. Thus, the state court's rejection of the claim was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.

Tran v. Kansas City Life Insurance Co.

228 F. Supp. 3d 1068 · District Court, C.D. California · Jan 5, 2017

Finally, Burgess is not qualified to make statements regarding whether diabetes is a disease, disorder, or a condition. … Tran would not have qualified for the policy if he had disclosed his true medical history. (Augustin Decl. ¶ 19.)

Federal Insurance v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co.

270 F. Supp. 2d 1183 · District Court, C.D. California · Jul 7, 2003

The FRSA not only mandates the frequency and manner of inspecting the tracks to detect deviations, but it mandates who is qualified to perform these inspections 49 C.F.R. §§ 213.7 , 213.233. … A claim of excessive speed is clearly preempted. CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Easterwood, 507 U.S. 658, 675 , 113 S.Ct. 1732 , 123 L.Ed.2d 387 (1993).

Four Jays Music Company v. Apple Inc

District Court, C.D. California · Apr 10, 2020

Except as otherwise provided in this 20 Order, or as otherwise stipulated or ordered, Disclosure or Discovery Material that 21 qualifies for protection under this Order must be clearly so designated before … If only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies 2 for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) 3 (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins).

Wesley Jessen Corp. v. Coopervision, Inc.

207 F. Supp. 2d 1103 · District Court, C.D. California · Jun 17, 2002

Moreover, even if, as Defendant argues, the patient records could qualify as sufficient corroboration for Dr. … There is no dispute that the Knapp '402 patent qualifies as prior art. (SGI ¶ 12). 4 . Defendant has produced evidence that the LeGrandFuhrman lenses qualify as prior art. (SGI ¶ 31).

United States v. White

893 F. Supp. 1423 · District Court, C.D. California · Jun 23, 1995

“In statute enforcement actions by the government, ‘irreparable injury 1 is generally presumed where a statutory violation is clearly shown[.]” Fed.Civ.Proc., § 13:58.10, citing United States v. … For the reasons discussed above, it plainly qualifies as content- or viewpoint-neutral, as several courts have found. Defendants’ Equal Protection argument is unfounded. 5.