Case law

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.

Youngblood v. Gates

112 F.R.D. 342 · District Court, C.D. California · Dec 18, 1985

The plaintiffs have requested the Court to compel discovery of documents and other sheriff’s department materials necessary for them to establish their case. … But they argue that the privilege is a qualified one, should not be recognized in this case, and was not properly asserted by Sheriff Gates. Wood v.

Levinson v. NORDSKOG COMPANY, INC.

301 F. Supp. 589 · District Court, C.D. California · Jul 7, 1969

The difference between forfeiture and abandonment was clearly pointed out by Judge Learned Hand in Metallizing Engineering Co. v. Kenyon Bearing etc. Co., 153 F.2d 516, 520 (2d Cir. 1946). … On the other hand, the plaintiff establishes that he fully disclosed his invention to Mr.

Bojorquez v. Abercrombie & Fitch, Co.

193 F. Supp. 3d 1117 · District Court, C.D. California · Jun 16, 2016

Bojorquez does not dispute that she qualifies as a member of the Brown subclasses. However, she cites Smith v. … As stated above, these purported common questions of fact are too minimal to establish any meaningful link between the two types of claims.

In Re Kanter

345 F. Supp. 1151 · District Court, C.D. California · Jun 19, 1972

This Court must then determine whether the amendment upsets the rule of law established in Carmona. … This clearly conflicts with the purpose of Bankruptcy Act § 70, and should therefore fall under the Supremacy Clause. 10.

In Re 2TheMart. Com, Inc. Securities Litigation

114 F. Supp. 2d 955 · District Court, C.D. California · Jul 17, 2000

See In re Clearly Canadian Sec. Litig., 875 F.Supp. 1410, 1416 (N.D.Cal.1995). Here, the complaint states that the statements were material in that they had a demonstrated effect on 2TheMart’s stock price. … In Worlds of Wonder, the Ninth Circuit stated that statements that were qualified by “no assurances” language were not misleading and did not support a claim of securities fraud. See id. at 1413-14.

Tidwell v. Marshall

526 F. Supp. 2d 1031 · District Court, C.D. California · Nov 30, 2007

established federal law. … As such, the California Supreme Court’s denial of Grounds One and Three was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law.

Barnick v. Wyeth

522 F. Supp. 2d 1257 · District Court, C.D. California · Oct 25, 2007

Under these factors, it appears to the Court that Plaintiff clearly qualifies as an outside salesperson. … Federal courts have found workers subject to daily reporting requirements and call quotas to be sufficiently unsupervised to qualify as outside salespersons.

Ebony Stone v. Long Beach Healthcare Center, LLC

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

The only exception to the Act’s immunity is when the injury occurs through willful misconduct. … The HHS Secretary is responsible for establishing procedures to administer this compensation program.

Benson v. Long Term Disability Income Plan for the Employees of Xerox

108 F. Supp. 2d 1074 · District Court, C.D. California · Sep 16, 1999

The plan became effective for eligible and qualified Xerox employees on August 1, 1996. See id. … To establish a claim under section 510 of ERISA, a plan participant must establish a prima facie case of a violation under section 510. See Ritter v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 58 F.3d 454, 457-58 (9th Cir. 1995).

Quintero v. Tilton

588 F. Supp. 2d 1121 · District Court, C.D. California · Nov 26, 2008

[Petitioner] did not establish that Luper was qualified to testify as to what the Bell Gardens Police Department should have done, or that its investigation was in any way deficient. … Thus, the California Supreme Court’s denial of Ground Three was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law.

Germaine James v. United States

District Court, C.D. California · Nov 18, 2024

When a complaint clearly does not state a claim upon which the court can grant relief, a court may dismiss the case on its own, at the outset, without leave to amend. See Reed v. … “Sovereign immunity is jurisdictional in nature,” meaning that a party’s failure to establish a waiver of sovereign immunity is properly resolved on a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule

Inland Mediation Board v. City of Pomona

158 F. Supp. 2d 1120 · District Court, C.D. California · Aug 23, 2001

In many instances, to establish a prima facie case of housing discrimination, a plaintiff must show that he or she is a member of a protected class who applied for and was qualified to rent housing and who was rejected; Plaintiff … There, the court held that the Rotary Club also qualified as a business establishment under the Act because of its vast, worldwide staff and its practice of disseminating a variety of international publications in which club

Gerald Hopman v. Sunrise Villa Culver City

District Court, C.D. California · Apr 16, 2021

The PREP Act, by and large, is an immunity statute. … 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

Siebert v. Standard Insurance Co. Group Long-Term Disability Policy

220 F. Supp. 2d 1128 · District Court, C.D. California · Jul 9, 2002

Although the SPECT scan and an abnormal laboratory findings alone do not establish CFS, Siebert argues that they do establish abnormal brain-patterns and internal bodily functions. Siebert also relies on Friedrich v. … Goldberg is not qualified to diagnose FMS, as he is a pediatrician rather than a rheumatologist (STND 0788); (4) Dr.

Ralbovsky v. Kane

407 F. Supp. 2d 1142 · District Court, C.D. California · Dec 16, 2005

established federal law. … established federal law.

Adolph Coors Co. v. Sickler

608 F. Supp. 1417 · District Court, C.D. California · May 8, 1985

Even though the federal labor laws immunize individuals from § 303 liability, see Charles D. Bonanno Linen Service, Inc. v. … In Coors I, however, Judge Williams articulated clearly the reasons why he denied Coors’ motion to amend, and his decision, therefore, should be res judicata.

Vasserman v. Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital

65 F. Supp. 3d 932 · District Court, C.D. California · Dec 5, 2014

Varían is qualified to explain, as a lay witness, what Google’s AdWords system does, how it behaves, and what it does when certain variables are changed. … Clearly, however, it assumed that employees working under these plans routinely worked, more than *977 eight hours a day.

Wilkinson v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

99 F.R.D. 148 · District Court, C.D. California · Sep 13, 1983

Fifth Amendment and Title 42 Claims Plaintiffs also allege that defendants deprived them of the Fifth Amendment rights to equal protection, due process, and equal privileges and immunities. … Class certification conceivably could be ordered for injunctive relief even as to claims that plaintiffs, because of standing limitations, clearly could not litigate as a class .to seek damages. E.g., Horton v.

Go Maps, Inc. v. Insurance Claims Associates Agency Inc.

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

Except as otherwise provided in 23 this Order, or as otherwise stipulated or ordered, Disclosure or Discovery Material 24 that qualifies for protection under this Order must be clearly so designated at the 25 time … a waiver of, or estoppel as to, any claim of privilege or immunity for such 13 Disclosure or Discovery Material or other information.