Case law

Loree Rodkin Management Corp. v. Ross-Simons, Inc.

315 F. Supp. 2d 1053 · District Court, C.D. California · Apr 20, 2004

Food & Drug Admin. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 133 , 120 S.Ct. 1291 , 146 L.Ed.2d 121 (2000). … Roth Greeting Cards v.

Am. Cas. Co. of Reading, Pa. v. Baker

758 F. Supp. 1340 · District Court, C.D. California · Feb 4, 1991

It traces the historical duties of the Federal Reserve Board, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the FDIC, the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, and the FSLIC. … The bank was subsequently closed by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board and FSLIC filed suit in its capacity as receiver.

Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc. v. Metric & Inch Tools, Inc.

614 F. Supp. 2d 1080 · District Court, C.D. California · May 7, 2009

Browne, attorney-at-law with the law firm Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis, appeared on behalf of plaintiff, and Robert A. … See Film Packages, Inc. v.

Careau Group v. United Farm Workers of America

716 F. Supp. 1319 · District Court, C.D. California · Jun 30, 1989

Wirtz v. Tyson’s Poultry, Inc., 355 F.2d 255 (8th Cir.1966); Sweetlake Land & Oil Co. v. NLRB, 334 F.2d 220 (5th Cir.1964). … V. ANALYSIS In general, courts have ruled that summary judgment is an inappropriate vehicle for raising a question concerning the court’s subject matter jurisdiction. O’Donnell v.

Santa Monica Baykeeper v. Kramer Metals, Inc.

619 F. Supp. 2d 914 · District Court, C.D. California · Feb 27, 2009

Agency v. California ex rel. State Water Resources Control Board, 426 U.S. 200, 205 , 96 S.Ct. 2022 , 48 L.Ed.2d 578 (1976). … See F.T.C. v.

In Re Inogen, Inc. Derivative Litigation

District Court, C.D. California · Dec 13, 2019

(See Twana Brown v. Scott Wilkinson, et al., Case No. CV 19-5568 FMO (AGRx) (C.D. Cal.) (“Brown”), Dkt. 1, “Brown Complaint” at ¶¶ 1, 26-73). … CV 19-5568 FMO (AGRx) Date December 13, 2019 Title Twana Brown v. Scott Wilkinson, et al. 2008).

Salomaa v. Honda Long Term Disability Plan

542 F. Supp. 2d 1068 · District Court, C.D. California · Mar 6, 2008

Bergt v. … Maniatty v.

In re Air Crash at Taipei

211 F.R.D. 374 · District Court, C.D. California · Jun 19, 2002

Co. v. United Parcel Serv., 177 F.3d 1142, 1146-47 (9th Cir.) … United States v. Lawless, 709 F.2d 485, 487 (7th Cir.1983); United States v. White, 950 F.2d 426, 430 (7th Cir. 1991); Eureka Financial Corp. v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co., 136 F.R.D. 179, 183 (E.D.Cal.1991).

Rabinovitz v. City of L. A.

287 F. Supp. 3d 933 · District Court, C.D. California · Mar 2, 2018

Id. at 426-27 , 124 S.Ct. 885 (quoting Brown v. Texas , 443 U.S. 47 , 51, 99 S.Ct. 2637 , 61 L.Ed.2d 357 (1979) ). … Id. ; Board of Cty. Com'rs of Bryan Cty. v. Brown , 520 U.S. 397 , 409, 117 S.Ct. 1382 , 137 L.Ed.2d 626 (1997). In Canton , the U.S.

Steven Carter v. Le Anne Lundy

District Court, C.D. California · Feb 24, 2025

See Brown 18 v. … E.g., 11 || Rangel v. Cruz, No. 2:23-CV-03754-DSF, 2023 WL 3828776, at *1-2 (C.D. Cal. May 30, 12 || 2023) (collecting cases); see also Langford v.

Santa Monica Baykeeper v. International Metals Ekco, Ltd.

619 F. Supp. 2d 936 · District Court, C.D. California · Feb 27, 2009

Agency v. California ex rel. State Water Resources Control Board, 426 U.S. 200, 205 , 96 S.Ct. 2022 , 48 L.Ed.2d 578 (1976). … See Walton v. U.S.

Richards v. County of Los Angeles

775 F. Supp. 2d 1176 · District Court, C.D. California · Mar 1, 2011

In Monell v. … Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 112, 126-27 , 108 S.Ct. 915 , 99 L.Ed.2d 107 (1988); see also Board of County Commissioners v.

Texas Instruments Inc. v. Tessera, Inc.

192 F.R.D. 637 · District Court, C.D. California · May 2, 2000

Alexander v. … CSP is a semiconductor package in which the connections between the chip and the circuit board are contained Aithin the area which is below the chip itself so that the chip occupies^ less space on the circuit board.

Green v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada

383 F. Supp. 2d 1224 · District Court, C.D. California · Aug 1, 2005

See Margolis v. Ryan, 140 F.3d 850, 852 (9th Cir.1998); Retail Clerks Union Local 648 v. Hub Pharmacy, Inc., 707 F.2d 1030, 1033 (9th Cir.1983). … In Friedrich v.

Saxton v. McDonnell Douglas Aircraft Co.

428 F. Supp. 1047 · District Court, C.D. California · Mar 22, 1977

v. … Brown v. Spilman, 155 U.S. 665, 670 , 15 S.Ct. 245 , 39 L.Ed. 304 .” (Emphasis added.) 6 . In that case, there was no physical contact to the plaintiff. It was a personal injury case.

Wilkey v. Cnty. of Orange

295 F. Supp. 3d 1086 · District Court, C.D. California · Nov 9, 2017

Mar. 31, 2017) ("While these allegations might point to indifference or negligence, they do not show [the plaintiff] was discriminated against, or denied benefits, by reason of a disability."); Brown v. … Brown , No. 1:14-CV-01184-LJO, 2015 WL 2374284 , at *6 (E.D. Cal.

Krystal v. British Overseas Airways Corporation

403 F. Supp. 1322 · District Court, C.D. California · Sep 18, 1975

The Civil Aeronautics Board Order which set out the terms of the Agreement repeated the phrasing of Art. 17 in noting the basis for recovery. 31 Fed.Reg. 7302 (1966). … See Husserl II, supra, 388 F.Supp. at 1242 n. 4; MacDonald v. Air Canada, Inc., 439 F.2d 1402, 1404-05 (1st Cir. 1971).

Krishan v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.

873 F. Supp. 345 · District Court, C.D. California · Dec 27, 1994

Under general principles of corporation law, a board may ratify and render binding any act by a subordinate officer or agent that it could have authorized originally. Birmingham v. Sogen-Swiss Int’l Corp. … Bogue v.

Hill v. Opus Corp.

841 F. Supp. 2d 1070 · District Court, C.D. California · Nov 14, 2011

See Board of Trustees, Sheet Metal Workers’ Nat. Pension Fund v. … The complaint identifies four Opus Corp. board members: (1) Michael P.

Matthews v. United Methodist Church

456 F. Supp. 851 · District Court, C.D. California · Aug 16, 1978

In MacDonald v. … In Goggin v.