Case law

Justin Brewer, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Criteo Corp., and Medallia, Inc.

District Court, C.D. California · Dec 15, 2025

If only a portion or portions of the material on 27 a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the 28 protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). 1 … If only a portion or portions of the 11 material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly 12 identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the 13

Hennessy v. Infinity Ins. Co.

358 F. Supp. 3d 1074 · District Court, C.D. California · Jan 28, 2019

Section 660, which defines "automobile physical damage coverage" and similar terms, contains the qualifier "insured under the policy" within the relevant definitions. … First, Defendant had no duty to defend against a claim that was not covered by the policy, and it has been clearly established that stigma damages, which Photoglou explicitly sought in the small claims action, are not covered

United States v. Drew

259 F.R.D. 449 · District Court, C.D. California · Aug 28, 2009

The choice between these two meanings of ‘access’ obviously affects what qualifies as unauthorized conduct. … Under the narrower reading of access, however, *460 only breach of a code-based restriction on the system would qualify.

In Re Application of Mgndichian

312 F. Supp. 2d 1250 · District Court, C.D. California · Oct 23, 2003

“The party seeking fees has the burden of establishing its eligibility.” Love v. Reilly, 924 F.2d 1492, 1494 (9th Cir.1991). … The circumstances cited by petitioner are clearly broad and general in application and do not justify an increase in the hourly fee rate.

Baird v. Alameida

407 F. Supp. 2d 1134 · District Court, C.D. California · Nov 17, 2005

immunity. … It is well established that “a party cannot manufacture a genuine issue of material fact merely by making assertions in its legal memoranda.” S.A. Empresa De Viacao Aerea Rio Grandense v.

Santomenno v. Transamerica Life Insurance

310 F.R.D. 451 · District Court, C.D. California · Aug 28, 2015

Feb. 19, 2013) (“The contract can immunize the future fiduciary TLIC from fiduciary breach no more than it can immunize the employer. … The problem with this statement is that it does not clearly explain what fiduciary duty is being violated by the charging of this “grossly excessive” fee.

Arturo Santos Garcia v. Roberto Vargas Hernandez

District Court, C.D. California · Sep 5, 2023

Except as otherwise provided in 22 this Order, or as otherwise stipulated or ordered, Disclosure of Discovery Material 23 that qualifies for protection under this Order must be clearly so designated before 24 the material … If only a portion of the material on a page qualifies for 4 protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) 5 (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins).

Franco-Gonzales v. Holder

767 F. Supp. 2d 1034 · District Court, C.D. California · Feb 1, 2011

Mandatory injunctions should be denied unless the facts and law clearly favor the moving party. … accommodation for Defendants to provide a Qualified Representative(s) to represent Plaintiffs in the entirety of their immigration proceedings, whether such Qualified Representative is performing the services pro bono or

United States v. Gross

41 F. Supp. 2d 1096 · District Court, C.D. California · Apr 12, 1999

By the time Williams was decided, it was already well-established that there is no constitutional right or non-constitutional right of “fundamental fairness” guaranteeing that a defendant may testify before the grand jury … Defendant clearly expressed his desire to testify, believing he had exculpatory evidence to provide to the jury.

Fang-Sui Yau v. Gustafson

623 F. Supp. 1515 · District Court, C.D. California · Dec 19, 1985

Attorney General to establish a uniform procedure for passing upon an asylum application. … interpretation of the statutes as denying petitioner, an alien stowaway, his right to a hearing before an immigration judge, is contradictory to the plain language as well as the purposes of the Refugee Act of 1980, which clearly

In re Motor Vehicle Air Pollution Control Equipment

52 F.R.D. 398 · District Court, C.D. California · Sep 4, 1970

Lit.1969) if they are authority for the separation of issues are clearly distinguishable. … If you qualify as a “buyer” of the commodity in question the liability — damage issues — except as to amount of damage — lend themselves to common determination.

Williams v. Columbia Broadcasting Systems, Inc.

57 F. Supp. 2d 961 · District Court, C.D. California · Jul 7, 1999

In order for a parody to qualify as a fair use of a protected work, the original work must be the object of the parody. … Bill is clearly a fictional work, more deserving of protection than a scholarly, historical or newsworthy works.

In re First American Corp. Erisa Litigation

258 F.R.D. 610 · District Court, C.D. California · Jul 27, 2009

Under the proper ERISA framework, the Plan Participants clearly allege both loss and causation. See Vaughn v. Bay Envtl. … Proof sufficient to establish liability will not vary at all from class member to class member.”)

Sascha B. Koch v. City of Los Angeles

District Court, C.D. California · Jun 2, 2025

City of Los Angeles et al consists of a “strip mall” with various business establishments, but the door of each unit is clearly marked with a unit number, including Unit 6 and Unit 7. Id. 35. … The Court finds that defendants have not met their burden to establish that discretionary immunity applies to their alleged conduct.

Alliance of Schools for Cooperative Insurance Programs v. Munich Reinsurance America, Inc.

District Court, C.D. California · Nov 20, 2024

This is likely why Defendant spills much ink casting doubt over the immunity status of public school districts. … ASCIP’s bylaws clearly provide that ASCIP “shall be under the direction and control of, and shall be governed by, an Executive Committee.” (Bylaws art. IV(1).)

Theron Aych v. University of Arizona

District Court, C.D. California · Jul 5, 2024

Accordingly, Aych does not establish that 22 the Court may exercise general personal jurisdiction over Defendants. 23 2. … Although not clearly 27 8 Section 1965(a) provides: “(a) Any civil action or proceeding under this chapter against any person 28 may be instituted

Manor Drug Stores v. Blue Chip Stamps

339 F. Supp. 35 · District Court, C.D. California · May 25, 1971

It appears well established that a non-party to an antitrust decree cannot attempt to enforce the decree against the defendant, even though the decree was intended to directly or indirectly benefit the non-party. … Since this section of the Act expressly limits recovery to private liti *39 gants who qualify as “purchasers,” it clearly has no application to the present action where the gravamen of the amended complaint is that due to

Culver v. Director of Corrections

450 F. Supp. 2d 1135 · District Court, C.D. California · Sep 16, 2006

In a bifurcated proceeding, the court also found true allegations that Petitioner had suffered a prior felony for which he had served a prison term, qualifying for sentence enhancements within the meaning of Cal. … Petitioner has not alleged or otherwise established that he meets either of the Pace elements for equitable tolling.

Wagner v. Director, Federal Emergency Management Agency

658 F. Supp. 1530 · District Court, C.D. California · Jun 1, 1987

FEMA is an agency of the Federal Government and the Government’s waiver of immunity under 42 U.S.C. § 4072 is limited to actions based on the flood insurance policy itself. 2. … This inundation of mistemper’d humour Rests by you only to be qualified. Shakespeare, The Life and Death of King John, Act V, Scene I (emphasis added).

Mobil Oil Corp. v. City of Long Beach

578 F. Supp. 1197 · District Court, C.D. California · Jan 17, 1984

Esprit de Corp, 682 F.2d 1267, 1274 (9th Cir.1982) (“A claim does not arise under federal law within the meaning of section 1331 where it relies on federal law only to establish an immunity or defense which would preclude … Presumably, they also were doubtful of establishing “federal question” jurisdiction under section 1331.