Case law

Hill v. Opus Corp.

464 B.R. 361 · District Court, C.D. California · Nov 14, 2011

“Account” is clearly defined in Section 2.1 of the plan, which states that an “Account” “shall be established for each eligible Participant reflecting the deferred Incentive Compensation owed to the Participant ... under … The SAR Plan clearly delineates that only Opus West is obligated to make payments under the plan.

Litton International Development Corp. v. City of Simi Valley

616 F. Supp. 275 · District Court, C.D. California · Jul 5, 1985

Even if Litton had been able to prove discriminatory intent, under the mixed motive standard established in Arlington Heights, supra and Mt. … The 1982 decision by the City was clearly not motivated by an intent to discriminate against a suspect class.

Kenneth W. Mills v. State of California

District Court, C.D. California · May 14, 2020

“Experience teaches that, unless cases 15 are pled clearly and precisely, issues are not joined, discovery is not controlled, the 16 trial court’s docket becomes unmanageable, the litigants suffer, and society loses … Then, in the request for relief, Plaintiff seeks to have the State of California’s 21 Eleventh Amendment immunity “strip[p]ed.” Id. at 6.

Crispin v. Christian Audigier, Inc.

717 F. Supp. 2d 965 · District Court, C.D. California · May 26, 2010

This phrase clearly references subpoenas that governmental entities are authorized under § 2703(b), not civil subpoenas duces tecum. … Without this blanket immunity from subpoena in civil cases, a user’s entire portfolio of stored communications and data might be fair game for an adversary.” Robison, supra, at 1208-09 (footnote omitted).

Cao Group, Inc. v. The Procter & Gamble Company

District Court, C.D. California · Aug 10, 2022

This provision is not intended to modify whatever 22 || procedure may be established in an e-discovery order that provides for production 23 || without prior privilege review. … , or other privilege or immunity shall not operate as a waiver of 27 || any such privilege or immunity. 9g | 14.

Novalogic, Inc. v. Activision Blizzard

41 F. Supp. 3d 885 · District Court, C.D. California · Jun 18, 2013

The problem is that there is no easily articulated, clearly defined legal principle that can quickly resolve the conflict. … Furthermore, because the phrase “Delta Force” and its insignia have an established and well-known prior meaning and connotation — as a unit in the U.S.

Migliori v. Boeing North American, Inc.

97 F. Supp. 2d 1001 · District Court, C.D. California · Apr 17, 2000

Each act which invades the body qualifies as a separate cause of action. 4 Witkin Cal. … Whether classified as a “true” cause of action or not, the Miglioris are clearly entitled to rely on the “civil conspiracy” legal theory to establish liability.

Vasquez v. City of Bell Gardens

938 F. Supp. 1487 · District Court, C.D. California · Aug 7, 1996

that he was terminated as a direct result of the exercise of his First Amendment rights, and that defendants were entitled to complete and/or qualified immunity for their decision to terminate Plaintiff. … Defendants Have Failed To Establish That the City’s Interest in Promoting Efficiency Outweighs Plaintiff’s First Amendment Rights.

Raul Cervantes Valenzuela v. V. Torres

District Court, C.D. California · Oct 18, 2019

City of Boise, Idaho, 24 623 F.3d 945, 966 (9th Cir. 2010) (monetary damages are not available from individual 25 defendants when they are sued in their official capacity, holding “qualified immunity 26 covers only … Cervantes does not clearly set forth any 10 facts giving rise to his ADA claim or specify which defendant(s) have violated his 11 rights under the ADA.

Amcal Multi-Housing, Inc. v. Pacific Clay Products

518 F. Supp. 2d 1194 · District Court, C.D. California · Sep 24, 2007

The Supreme Court has spoken clearly and unequivocally on the point advanced by plaintiffs — PRPs are allowed to bring a cost recovery action under section 107(a)(4)(B) irrespective of whether a statutorily defined defense … Compl. ¶¶ 18(a)-(i), 19(a)-(d)), those allegations are no longer relevant to them establishing a claim against defendant.

Daghlian v. DeVry University, Inc.

582 F. Supp. 2d 1231 · District Court, C.D. California · Feb 19, 2008

The "activity” regulated here-postsecondaiy education-clearly meets this standard. See Mass. School of Law at Andover, Inc. v. Am. … Policy & Planning, 126 Or.App. 459 , 870 P.2d 222, 227 (1994) (en banc) (De Muniz, J., concurring in part) ("Plaintiff's activities clearly constitute 'interstate commerce.'

Cushman v. MOTOR CAR DEALERS SERVICES, INC.

652 F. Supp. 2d 1122 · District Court, C.D. California · Jul 27, 2009

The regulation states that “[ejvery employee benefit plan shall establish and maintain a procedure by which a claimant shall have a reasonable opportunity to appeal and adverse benefit determination to an appropriate named … Plaintiffs primary contention appears to be that Defendant’s conclusion was based on clearly erroneous findings of fact.

Jinna E. Miller v. Abbott Laboratories

District Court, C.D. California · Apr 3, 2023

If only a portion or 8 portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing 9 Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making 10 appropriate … If only a portion or portions of 24 the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also 25 must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making 26

DJCBP Corporation et al. v. City of Baldwin Park et al.

District Court, C.D. California · Dec 22, 2025

CEB 2025) (“However, the general rule of Govt C §815(b) that statutory liabilities are subject to applicable statutory immunities 1s itself qualified by the introductory words of Govt C §815: “Except as … otherwise provided by statute: ....””); see e.g., Quigley, 7 Cal.5th at 804 (finding that § 835(a) provided a statutory basis for liability and § 850.4 established an immunity to such liability).

Korn v. United States

937 F. Supp. 2d 1182 · District Court, C.D. California · Mar 20, 2013

May 7, 2012) (Wilner, M.J.) (“ ‘If the absence of prejudice can be clearly established,’ a district court should end the IAC [ineffective assistance of counsel] inquiry.”) (quoting Williams v. … It bears remembering that United States Supreme Court precedent is the only source of “clearly established law” for AEDPA purposes. See Frost v.

Shaw v. Life Insurance Co. of North America

144 F. Supp. 3d 1114 · District Court, C.D. California · Nov 4, 2015

The district court should exercise its discretion, however, only when circumstances clearly establish that additional evidence is necessary to conduct an adequate de novo review of the benefit decision. … See also Polnicky, 2014 WL 6680725 at *7 (“In reviewing the plan administrator’s decision, the Court has discretion to allow evidence that was not before the plan administrator, but ‘only when circumstances clearly establish

Garcia v. Benov

715 F. Supp. 2d 974 · District Court, C.D. California · May 15, 2009

certain suits challenging administrative agency actions and seeking equitable relief, the APA does not waive immunity if statutes preclude judicial review. … Such evidence is not sufficient to establish what the Secretary’s decision in a specific case was based on, or whether that decision was arbitrary.

Los Angeles Times Communications, LLC v. Department of the Army

442 F. Supp. 2d 880 · District Court, C.D. California · Jul 24, 2006

The Plaintiff objects specifically to two statements in the Jonasson declara *888 tion. 7 One statement is clearly hearsay because Jonasson states what someone else told him about the availability of SIRs and, therefore, … Endangerment of Life or Physical Safety of Any Individual: To qualify for the Law Enforcement Purposes Exemption, an agency must also establish non-conclusory reasons why disclosure of each category of withheld documents

Gary G. v. Gavin Newsom

District Court, C.D. California · Sep 30, 2024

that ‘§ 1983 was 14 note intended to abrogate a State’s Eleventh Amendment immunity.’”) … The Court finds this sufficient to 9 establish a causal connection at this stage.

Vashistha v. Allstate Insurance

989 F. Supp. 1029 · District Court, C.D. California · Oct 31, 1997

Based on this statement by Plaintiffs, Martin opined that the *1031 rental properties also would not qualify for coverage by the Allstate policies. … “Judgment on the pleadings is proper when the moving party clearly establishes on the face of the pleadings that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”