Case law

Guangzhou Yucheng Trading Co., Ltd. v. DBest Products, Inc.

District Court, C.D. California · Nov 23, 2021

The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as 16 CONFIDENTIAL or HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL does not— without the 17 submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the … doctrine, or any other applicable privilege or immunity and the date of 6 discovery that the document was inadvertently produced.

Agensys, Inc. v. The Regents of The University of California

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

Each such redaction, 6 regardless of size, shall be clearly labeled as redacted, such as by black-boxing the 7 redacted text. … All redactions based on attorney-client 15 privilege or work-product immunity shall be marked as “Privilege” or a similar 16 marking.

Raizel Blumberger v. California Hospital Medical Center

District Court, C.D. California · Nov 2, 2022

The Motion to Amend cites no authority in support of Tilley’s request to 27 amend the filing date of the Notice of Removal, and Tilley fails to establish the legal 28 basis for the Motion. See Dkt. 13 at 3-4. … 06066-FLA-JC Document 36 Filed 11/02/22 Page 3 of 9 Page ID #:474 1 Rule 5-4.6.2, which governs technical failures with the court’s CM/ECF system, 2 Tilley’s request fails because Local Rule 5-4.6.2 states clearly

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

District Court, C.D. California · Jul 1, 2022

If only a portion of the material on a page qualifies for 9 protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., 10 by making appropriate markings in the margins). … If only a portion of the material on a page 20 qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected 21 portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). 22

Du Mortier v. Massachusetts General Life Insurance

805 F. Supp. 816 · District Court, C.D. California · Feb 10, 1992

Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85 , 103 S.Ct. 2890 , 77 L.Ed.2d 490 (1983), the Court found that a disability plan that was supplemental to a general ERISA plan could not qualify for the express statutory exemption from … Thus, the Court was clearly concerned with plans that are administered as a unit. There is no evidence to support finding that the cancer plan was administered as a unit with the general plan.

Speaker Ex Rel. Speaker v. COUNTY, SAN BERNARDINO

82 F. Supp. 2d 1105 · District Court, C.D. California · Feb 2, 2000

Burden of Proof The parties dispute which side has the burden of proof to establish that the privilege applies. In United States v. … The first ease to clearly adopt this view of the scope of waiver was Vanderbilt v. Town of Chilmark, 174 F.R.D. 225 (D.Mass.1997).

Ryan Morrison v. City of Los Angeles, California

District Court, C.D. California · Jun 21, 2022

. & R. at 29; see also id. at 24-25.) 10 Finally, as to qualified immunity, Plaintiff again discusses 11 United States v. Whitfield, 939 F.2d 1071, 1073, 1075 (D.C. … Ct. 577, 589-90 (2018) (“clearly established” 20 means “dictated by ‘controlling authority’” or supported by 21 “robust consensus” of “persuasive authority” (citation omitted)). 22 (

American Motorcyclist Ass'n v. Watt

543 F. Supp. 789 · District Court, C.D. California · Jul 1, 1982

Plaintiffs have, therefore, established that a present controversy exists which makes this case ripe for review. … ‘Approved’ routes will be signed or otherwise marked or mapped so that those routes of travel which are clearly open will be readily identifiable.

Stichting Pensioenfonds ABD v. Countrywide Financial Corp.

447 B.R. 302 · District Court, C.D. California · Dec 29, 2010

The strong presumption against removal means the removing party bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction and that removal was proper. Gaus v. … Citigroup, Inc., 295 B.R. 747, 750, 753 (E.D.Pa.2003) (finding an action is related to the bankruptcy case only when the right to indemnification is clearly established and accrues upon the filing of the civil action).

Keith v. Volpe

618 F. Supp. 1132 · District Court, C.D. California · Sep 3, 1985

The summaries are necessary to present clearly the relevant facts contained in each file. … The Eleventh Amendment’s grant of sovereign immunity to the States does not bar this court from determining whether Hawthorne’s officials complied with California law.

Sherri Baldy v. MGA Entertainment, Inc.

District Court, C.D. California · Feb 8, 2023

This provision is not 15 || intended to modify whatever procedure may be established in an e-discovery order 16 | that provides for production without prior privilege review. … , or other privilege or immunity 20 | shall not operate as a waiver of any such privilege or immunity. 21 | 14.

W.M. Jaqua, LLC v. Transamerica Life Insurance Company

District Court, C.D. California · Sep 23, 2021

If only a portion of the 8 || material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly 9 || identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the 10 || margins). 11 … If only a portion of the material on a page qualifies for 22 || protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) 23 || (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). 24

Martin v. Aetna Life Insurance Co.

223 F. Supp. 3d 973 · District Court, C.D. California · Nov 30, 2016

The employee has the burden of establishing a disability. Id. at 0566. … Plaintiff argues that Aetna’s mere writing a denial letter does not immunize it from liability. Pi’s Reply Br. 2:6-8.

Stiletto Television, Inc. v. Hastings, Clayton & Tucker, Inc.

392 F. Supp. 3d 1133 · District Court, C.D. California · Jun 17, 2019

The evidence of STV's involvement in Music and Passion: Live is insufficient to establish it as a joint author absent an agreement. … Though STV's contributions were clearly valuable, valuable contributions (even copyrightable contributions) are not sufficient to create authorship.

United States v. General Dynamics Corp.

644 F. Supp. 1497 · District Court, C.D. California · Oct 28, 1986

Given that situation, this Court is unable to say that the Contract is clearly one for best efforts or clearly a firm fixed-price contract or clearly some kind of hybrid. … (2) Is the nature of the Contract clearly a firm fixed-price contract, or clearly a best efforts contract, or clearly another type of contract — a hybrid of some kind? What type of contract is it?

National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) v. Ameriquest Mortgage Co.

635 F. Supp. 2d 1096 · District Court, C.D. California · Jan 12, 2009

Harris, 567 F.Supp. 637, 639-40 (D.Mass.1983) (“[W]here only declaratory and injunctive relief are sought, [the NAACP] qualifies under [the third Hunt prong].”). … Plaintiff alleges the same claims against all Defendants. 3.2 Plaintiff States a Disparate Impact Claim under the FHA and the ECOA For a disparate impact claim to succeed, a plaintiff must adequately plead: (1) a specific and clearly

Turley v. SELECTIVE SERV. SYSTEM ORANGE CTY., CA., LOCAL BOARD NO. 134

301 F. Supp. 845 · District Court, C.D. California · May 27, 1969

The statute clearly entitles him to the deferment upon presenting the facts to his Board. … Should *853 he for some reason fail to enter the ministry, or otherwise fail to qualify for the ministerial exemption, he is again liable for induction.

Biomagic, Inc. v. Dutch Brothers Enterprises, LLC

729 F. Supp. 2d 1140 · District Court, C.D. California · May 25, 2010

to preclude enforcement of a federal right is not immune from review in this Court as to its ‘adequacy.’ ”) (Brennan, J., dissenting). … Resol. 161 (2005) (“The ruling ... that California’s section 1281.2 does not restrict an arbitrator’s power, is clearly wrong.”).

Kevin Realworldfare v. Tamara Lucile Wagner

District Court, C.D. California · Jul 17, 2025

Further, because defendant Wagner is a Riverside County Superior Court Commissioner with absolute immunity for her acts related to the judicial process and Plaintiffs’ claims against defendant Wagner clearly relate to her … Accordingly, Plaintiffs have not established any valid basis for reconsideration, and the Motion must be denied. See Sanai v. McDonnell, No. 2:18 CV 05663-SVW-AGR, 2018 WL 8731933, at *2 (C.D. Cal.

Yang Ming Marine Transport Corp. v. Oceanbridge Shipping International, Inc.

48 F. Supp. 2d 1032 · District Court, C.D. California · Feb 8, 1999

Because the two shipments at issue in the instant case originated in Long Beach, California, the Pomerene Act clearly applies. … This exception is clearly inapplicable to Sato’s declaration, especially where it is uncertain from the face of the declaration when and where and by whom the “Yang Ming” statements were made.