Case law

Westways World Travel, Inc. v. AMR Corp.

218 F.R.D. 223 · District Court, C.D. California · Jul 9, 2003

In this ease, Plaintiffs contend that the action qualifies under both Rule 23(b)(2) and Rule 23(b)(3). … Whether there are 1,400 or 10,000 class members is inconsequential because either number clearly meets the threshold of joinder impracticability. Harris v.

GRAHAM GOULDMAN, an individual v. HARVEY LISBERG, an individual; California corporation and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive

District Court, C.D. California · May 13, 2026

If only a portion or portions of the material on a page 4 | qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected 5 || portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). … If only a portion or portions of the material 15 | ona page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the 16 | protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins)

Holifield v. BP America, Inc.

786 F. Supp. 840 · District Court, C.D. California · Jun 19, 1991

The Fund argues that § 1653(c)(1) clearly applies only to vessels onto which TAPS oil was unloaded. … Non-profit, private corporations, like the Fund, do not qualify as agencies of the Federal Government. Public Citizen Health v. HEW, 668 F.2d 537 , 543-544 (D.C.Cir.1981); Shultz v.

Payman Rahimian v. FCA US, LLC

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

If only 12 a portion of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also 13 must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings 14 in the margins). … This provision is not intended to modify whatever procedure 20 may be established in an e-discovery order that provides for production without prior 21 privilege review.

Global Med Group, LLC v. New High Ltd.

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

If only a portion or portions of the material on a page 23 qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected 24 portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). … This provision is not intended to modify whatever procedure 18 may be established in an e-discovery order that provides for production without 19 prior privilege review.

Nodleman v. Aero Mexico

528 F. Supp. 475 · District Court, C.D. California · Dec 10, 1981

Clearly, handicapped individuals are of the especially benefited class of Section 504. See Kling, 633 F.2d at 878 ; see e.g., Kampmeier v. … The grounds that establish standing will not be presumed. Plaintiffs must proffer specific facts that establish their actual or threatened “injury in fact.”

Michelmore v. United States

299 F. Supp. 1116 · District Court, C.D. California · May 12, 1969

He was not qualified as an IFR pilot. … Evidence was introduced to attempt to establish that Dorman D.

Stoltie v. People of State of Cal.

501 F. Supp. 2d 1252 · District Court, C.D. California · Jun 21, 2007

established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” *1256 The Supreme Court has explained that a state court’s decision is “contrary to” clearly established Supreme Court precedent if it “applies … The reviewing court may only issue the writ under these circumstances if the state court’s application of clearly established law was “objectively unreasonable.” Id. at 409 , 120 S.Ct. 1495 .

Paul Lehrman v. New York State

District Court, C.D. California · Sep 3, 2019

A violation of a state constitutional right alone “does not establish a basis for a § 1983 lawsuit.” Armstrong v. Asselin, 734 F.3d 984, 989 (9th Cir. 2013). … In particular, if Plaintiff believes there are amendments to his Complaint that would render it cognizable, he should set them forth clearly and explain why they would render his claim viable in federal court.

David Sanchez Banaga v. California Highway Patrol

District Court, C.D. California · May 21, 2025

If only a portion or portions of the material on a 10 page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the 11 protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). … If only a portion or portions of the 21 material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly 22 identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the 23 margins

Elmer Pineda v. FCA US, LLC; and Does 1 through 10, inclusive

District Court, C.D. California · Feb 5, 2026

Except as otherwise provided in this 23 Order, or as otherwise stipulated or ordered, Disclosure of Discovery Material that 24 qualifies for protection under this Order must be clearly so designated before the 25 material … This provision is not intended to modify whatever procedure 11 may be established in an e-discovery order that provides for production without prior 12 privilege review.

Tony Greer and Mayra Greer v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company

District Court, C.D. California · Jan 28, 2026

Except as otherwise provided in 26 this Order, or as otherwise stipulated or ordered, Disclosure or Discovery Material 27 that qualifies for protection under this Order must be clearly so designated before 28 the material … If only a portion of the material on a page qualifies for 7 protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) 8 (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins).

Kamar v. Radio Shack Corp.

254 F.R.D. 387 · District Court, C.D. California · Oct 8, 2008

RadioShack has not clearly indicated whether it has any records, such as computerized records, that indicate the cloek-in and clock-out times. … Plaintiffs do not qualify for certification under Rule 23(b)(1).

Richard v. City of Pasadena

889 F. Supp. 384 · District Court, C.D. California · Apr 13, 1995

Moreover, there would be no benefit in requiring plaintiffs to prolong litigation after “already effectively achiev[ing] then-goals,” simply to qualify as the prevailing party. … A statute must be defined clearly enough “so as not to cause persons ‘of common intelligence — necessarily [to] guess at its meaning and [to] differ as to its application.’” Id., quoting Connally v. General Constr.

JONATHON SAINZ v. CENCORA, INC., a Delaware Stock Corporation; AMERISOURCEBERGEN DRUG CORPORATION

District Court, C.D. California · Mar 16, 2026

Except as otherwise provided in 7 this Order, or as otherwise stipulated or ordered, Disclosure of Discovery Material 8 that qualifies for protection under this Order must be clearly so designated before 9 the material … If only a 27 portion of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also 28 1 must clearly identify the protected portion

Isidro Solis v. FCA US, LLC

District Court, C.D. California · Feb 27, 2026

If only 11 a portion of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also 12 must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings 13 in the margins). … This provision is not intended to modify whatever procedure 19 may be established in an e-discovery order that provides for production without prior 20 privilege review.

Bralin Bell v. County of Los Angeles; Does 1 through 10 inclusive

District Court, C.D. California · Aug 27, 2026

If only a portion or 22 portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the 23 Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) 24 (e.g., by … If only a portion or portions 7 | of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also 8 | must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate 9 | markings in the margins

Nikolos Edward Carrafield v. Trans Union LLC

District Court, C.D. California · Jan 5, 2026

Except as otherwise 7 provided in this Order, or as otherwise stipulated or ordered, Disclosure of 8 Discovery Material that qualifies for protection under this Order must be clearly so 9 designated … If only a 16 portion of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the 17 Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) 18 (e.g., by making

Jake Bertellotti and Taylor Carty v. Regents of the University of California; James B. Milliken, President of the University of California, in his official capacity; Julio Frenk, Chancellor of the University of California, Los Angeles, in his official capacity, and Does 1 through 10

District Court, C.D. California · Dec 11, 2025

If only a portion or portions of the material on a page 15 qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected 16 portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). … If only a portion or portions 26 of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly 27 identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the

Oscar Enrique Nunez Euceda v. United States

District Court, C.D. California · Jun 22, 2022

Except with respect to the documents referenced in 1166 Paragraph 1(B)(h) supra, if only a portion of the material on a page qualifies for 1177 protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected … Except as 77 provided above, if only a portion of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the 88 Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making 99 appropriate markings