Case law

Angeles v. Johnson

121 F. Supp. 3d 997 · District Court, C.D. California · Aug 4, 2015

Furthermore, INA § 2040) gives the USCIS discretion to consider an approved Form 1-130 to be valid for use by a surviving relative, such as Plaintiffs, despite the death of the qualifying beneficiary, here Demetrio. … First, “SA-1” clearly appears on Demetrio’s Permanent Resident Card, issued several years after’ his immigration [Doc. 31-1, at 36; Doc. 30-1', at 4-5] and after full implementation of the 1976 Amendments, Second, the Agency

ROETTGEN v. Ryan

639 F. Supp. 2d 1053 · District Court, C.D. California · Jun 30, 2009

established Supreme Court precedent. … established.

Carey v. United of Omaha Life Insurance

1 F. Supp. 3d 1039 · District Court, C.D. California · Feb 24, 2014

Carey was therefore clearly on notice that the DOI letter was not a perfected request for appeal under the Plan. … Carey also appears to argue in his opposition that compliance with the 180 day requirement established within the Plan is voluntary.

Sarah Smith v. AGA Service Company

District Court, C.D. California · Nov 24, 2021

The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as 26 CONFIDENTIAL does not—without the submission of competent evidence by 27 declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed … If only a portion 16 or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also 17 must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in 18 the margins

Centerline Housing Partnership I, L.P.-Series 2 v. Palm Communities

District Court, C.D. California · Jun 15, 2021

If only a portion of the material on a page qualifies for 26 protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) 27 (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). … This provision is not intended to modify 23 whatever procedure may be established in an e-discovery order that provides for 24 production without prior privilege review.

Spangler v. Pasadena City Board of Education

384 F. Supp. 846 · District Court, C.D. California · Aug 12, 1974

The administrative posts, which the respondents summarily filled in alleged violation of the broad mandates of the Pasadena Plan and which form the focal point of the instant inquiry, clearly fall within the parameters of … “Vacancies in these positions are filled from eligible lists established by examination.

Joseph Scott Alter v. US Supreme Court

District Court, C.D. California · Jul 31, 2023

Elenis was illegal and failed to adhere to the proper constitutional principles and separation of powers by bypassing the lower courts and or improperly evaluates The Establishment Clause.” … Case No. 2:23-cv-05579-ODW-PD Date: July 31, 2023 Tpaitrlety ] t o predetermine the outcome of a judicial proceeding, while clearly improper, nevertheless does not pierce the immunity extended

Junius J. Joyner, III v. Carrol A. Weimer, Jr.

District Court, C.D. California · Nov 25, 2024

Plaintiff’s claims in the Complaint are very clearly based on the actions of various judicial defendants taken in their role as judges. (Dkt. 1 at 4-12.) … The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing personal jurisdiction. See Harris Rutsky & Co. Ins. Servs., Inc. v.

United States v. Bender

331 F. Supp. 1074 · District Court, C.D. California · Sep 20, 1971

And we note that the newly proposed Amendments to Rule 16 greatly enlarge the scope of both defense and prosecution discovery. 2 The steady trend of the law as embodied in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure is clearly … It is further ordered that defendant’s attorney and a qualified doctor chosen on behalf of defendant, may be present during the giving of the above-described physical examination.

Thedford Leon Kersh v. Josie Gastello

District Court, C.D. California · Nov 4, 2022

immunity. … 3 establishes on the face of the pleadings that no material issue of fact remains to be 4 resolved and that [the moving party] is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” 5 Hal Roach Studios v.

Von Colln v. County of Ventura

189 F.R.D. 583 · District Court, C.D. California · Nov 12, 1999

Actual Recovery Next, defendants argue that even if plaintiffs establish standing, they will not be able to recover prospective relief because they are not likely to establish “that a credible threat exists that they, will … it clearly violates the analytical framework enunciated by the Supreme Court in McMillian . .

Padilla v. Astrue

541 F. Supp. 2d 1102 · District Court, C.D. California · Feb 21, 2008

“[A]n ALJ may find that a claimant lacks a medically severe impairment or combination of impairments only when his conclusion is ‘clearly established by medical evidence.’” Webb, 433 F.3d at 687 (citation omitted). … However, as a lay person, an ALJ is “simply not qualified to interpret raw medical data in functional terms.” Nguyen v. Chater, 172 F.3d 31, 35 (1st Cir.1999) (per curiam); Day v.

Life Opportunity Fund I, LP v. Evelyn Feliciano

District Court, C.D. California · Feb 27, 2025

If only a portion 7 or portions of the material on a page qualify for protection, the Producing Party 8 should to the extent practicable, clearly identify the protected portion(s) (for example, 9 by making appropriate … If only a portion or portions of the 19 material on a page qualify for protection, the Producing Party should to the extent 20 practical clearly identify the protected portion(s) (for example, by making 21

EMILY Q. v. Bonta

208 F. Supp. 2d 1078 · District Court, C.D. California · Mar 30, 2001

To qualify for a permanent injunction, “plaintiffs must establish actual success on the merits, and that the balance of equities favor injunctive relief.” Orantes-Hernandez v. … Defendant should be required to establish a standard TBS re-quesi/referral form and distribute these forms for at least the next three years at which time TBS may presumably be established enough so that special request procedures

I.A. v. City of Redondo Beach

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

immunity. … determined by the jury before the court can rule on qualified 23 immunity.”

In Re SeeBeyond Technologies Corp. Securities Litigation

266 F. Supp. 2d 1150 · District Court, C.D. California · May 28, 2003

Litig., 160 F.Supp.2d 1059 , 1068 n. 4 (N.D.Cal.2001) (“[subsections (A) and (B) of 15 U.S.C. § 78u-5(c)(1) provide alternative means by which forward-looking statements may qualify for the safe harbor.... … However, something like a “state of mind” element of subsection (A) is already clearly present in the statute.

Chuidian v. Philippine National Bank

734 F. Supp. 415 · District Court, C.D. California · Apr 9, 1990

Illegality It is well established that illegality or a legal prohibition on performance is a defense to a breach of contract action. … OPEC, supra at 1360, wherein it was stated “[t]he act of state doctrine is not diluted by the commercial activity exception which limits the dof-'.rme of sovereign immunity.” 2.

United States v. Browne

233 F. Supp. 3d 814 · District Court, C.D. California · Feb 10, 2017

Third, the Court noted the caller’s use of the 911 emergency system—a “911 call has some features that allow for identifying and tracing callers, and thus provide some safeguards against making false reports with immunity … Cty. of Los Angeles, 64 F.3d 1315 , 1320 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Having established that the officers had reasonable articu-lable suspicion to stop the plaintiffs, we next consider whether under clearly established law, a reasonable

Okura & Co. (America), Inc. v. Careau Group

783 F. Supp. 482 · District Court, C.D. California · Aug 16, 1991

Fourth, Okura allegedly forced Careau to utilize the services of A.P.Y. as contractor for its henhouse project when it knew that A.P.Y. was not qualified. … The financing arrangement is clearly that of bor *494 rower and lender. The agreement is fully integrated and provides that it is the final expression of the parties’ intent.

Allfast Fastening Systems v. Briles Rivet Corp.

16 F. Supp. 2d 1154 · District Court, C.D. California · May 11, 1998

“The plain language of Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element … an alternative rivet design as opposed to qualifying as an alternative supplier of an already-qualified rivet design.