Case law

Thurma J. Kelley v. Colonial Penn Life Insurance Company

District Court, C.D. California · Jun 5, 2020

Except as otherwise provided in 5 this Order, or as otherwise stipulated or ordered, Disclosure of Discovery Material 6 that qualifies for protection under this Order must be clearly so designated before the 7 material … If only a portion of the 14 material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must 15 clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate 16

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.

Rannis v. Fair Credit Lawyers, Inc.

489 F. Supp. 2d 1110 · District Court, C.D. California · May 23, 2007

These prohibitions of the statute are no less valid and are not clearly beyond what Congress intended. … “Virtually any law-federal, state or local-can serve as a predicate” for a UCL claim, “unless the defendant is privileged, immunized by another statute, or the predicate statute expressly bars its enforcement” under the UCL

UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Global Eagle Entertainment, Inc.

117 F. Supp. 3d 1092 · District Court, C.D. California · Jun 22, 2015

“Even where no duty to disclose would otherwise exist, where one does speak he must speak the whole truth to the end that he does not conceal any facts which materially qualify those stated.” Vega v. … Under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, such pre-liti-gation material is immune from suit unless the threatened lawsuit was a ‘sham’ ”).

Hydrafacial LLC v. Defendants

District Court, C.D. California · Nov 25, 2025

This provision is not intended to modify whatever 17 procedures may be established in an e-discovery order that provides for the 18 production without prior privilege review. … Nothing in this Order 13 abridges the right of a producing party to withhold documents protected by 14 privilege, the work product doctrine, or any other recognized immunity from 15 discovery (“Privileged

Acosta v. Apfel

15 F. Supp. 2d 947 · District Court, C.D. California · Jan 27, 1998

[E]very effort must be made to secure evidence that resolves the issue as clearly and explicitly as circumstances permit. … . [¶] Adequate documentation of past work includes information about those work demands which have a bearing on the medically established limitations.

AMERICAN ASS'N OF PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES v. Shelley

324 F. Supp. 2d 1120 · District Court, C.D. California · Jul 6, 2004

They are, therefore, “qualified individuals with disabilities” within the meaning of the Americans With Disabilities Act. … On the contrary, Amici Electronic Frontier Foundation, et al., provide evidence that several DREs are already equipped with WPAT capability and have been federally qualified.

Brockamp v. United States

859 F. Supp. 1283 · District Court, C.D. California · Jul 26, 1994

Section 6511(b) establishes an additional limitations period separate from the three-year time limitation period in Section 6511(a). See Oropallo, 994 F.2d at 27 ; see also Mills v. … The court further found that, except in clearly unique situations which did not apply here, the limitations period in Section 6511 have not been equitably tolled. Id. at 28 .

Joseph Scott Alter v. Mitch McConnell

District Court, C.D. California · Feb 27, 2024

, his claims are barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. … The plaintiff bears 25 the burden of establishing the existence of such a waiver, absent which 26

Turo Inc. v. City of Los Angeles

District Court, C.D. California · Jul 27, 2020

See, e.g., Turo MTS at 9-19 (contending that Section 230 immunizes Turo from the City’s claims, and that the City cannot establish irreparable harm); Hosts MTS at 5-12 (contending that the individual hosts are not liable … To qualify for certification under § 1292(b), an interlocutory order must meet three criteria: (1) the order involves “a controlling question of law”; (2) there are “substantial grounds for difference of opinion” on that

LYMI Inc. v. Few Moda Inc.

District Court, C.D. California · Apr 8, 2025

If only a portion of the material on a page qualifies for 21 protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) 22 (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). … If only a portion of the material on a 5 || page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the 6 || protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). 7 (

Turo Inc. v. City of Los Angeles

District Court, C.D. California · Jun 19, 2020

(1) CDA Section 230 Immunity Section 230 of the CDA “provides internet companies with immunity from certain claims in furtherance of its stated policy ‘to promote the continued development of the … can only be justified if such a departure was clearly “intended” by “Congress.”

Abeyta v. Giurbino

607 F. Supp. 2d 1123 · District Court, C.D. California · Mar 31, 2009

To determine what, if any, “clearly established” United States Supreme. Court law exists, the court may examine decisions other than those of the United States Supreme Court. LaJoie v. … On the other hand, a state court’s decision cannot be contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established .federal law, if no Supreme Court precedent creates clearly established federal law relating to the

ROCKLAND INSTITUTE, DIV. OF AMISTAD VOCATIONAL SCHOOLS, INC. v. Ass'n of Independent Colleges and Schools

412 F. Supp. 1015 · District Court, C.D. California · Apr 28, 1976

It must first be determined if the Association followed its own established procedures for withdrawing accreditation. Blende, id.; North Dakota v. … However, it clearly appears they are limited to the record before the Association at the time of the withdrawal of accreditation.

United States v. Ahmed (In Re Ahmed)

362 B.R. 445 · District Court, C.D. California · Nov 13, 2006

Chapter 18 Debt Eligibility Limits To qualify for relief under Chapter 13, a bankruptcy debtor must not exceed the statutory limits on noncontingent and liquidated debts. … The record clearly indicates that at the time the Chapter 13 petition was filed, Debtor had total debts exceeding the limits. Any factual finding to the contrary would be clearly erroneous.

In re First American Corp. Erisa Litigation

263 F.R.D. 549 · District Court, C.D. California · Jun 10, 2009

Here, the Plan Participants contend that they qualify under Rule 23(b)(1), which allows for certification if prosecuting separate actions by individual class members would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications … Under the proper ERISA framework, the Plan Participants clearly allege both loss and causation. See Vaughn v. Bay Envtl.

Chandler McFall v. Perrigo Company

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

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

Mitchell v. Metropolitan Life Insurance

523 F. Supp. 2d 1132 · District Court, C.D. California · Dec 3, 2007

He was informed that a continuous absence was required to qualify for LTD benefits. (MET 59.) 28. On April 15, 2004, Mitchell filed a claim with MET, arguing that his health conditions established a disability. … Kile found a lack of consensus and lack of sufficient evidence to establish a disability.

Mitchell v. Los Angeles Unified School District

739 F. Supp. 511 · District Court, C.D. California · May 31, 1990

chargeable expenses, clearly nonchargeable expenses, and reasonably disputable expenses. … The court rejects the City’s argument that it itself has no duty to ensure or establish the constitutionally adequate procedure described by Hudson ... The logic of Hudson itself contradicts this argument.

Bernal v. PARADIGM TALENT AND LITERARY AGENCY

788 F. Supp. 2d 1043 · District Court, C.D. California · Feb 22, 2010

These facts clearly cut against a finding of access. … Defendants argue that the Court should reject Warwick-Smith’s report because he is not qualified to render an expert opinion regarding literary analysis.