Case law

Stoddard v. Ling-Temco-Vought, Inc.

513 F. Supp. 314 · District Court, C.D. California · Jan 27, 1981

The procedure I intend to follow in this trial would first allow the issue of negligence to be established by res ipsa, and if the proof as a matter of law fails there, then the issue of negligence may be established, if … The corporate defendants are not sovereigns who are immune from suit except to the extent they consent to be sued.

Daniel Lawson v. C A O N U G N EL T E Y S O P F O L L O IC S E A D N E G P E A L R E T S M , L E O N S T , S O T R I D P E U R L ATED PROTECTIVE C A I G T U Y I L O A F R L O (# S 4 4 A 0 N 38 G ) E , O L F E F S I , C O E F R F ICER R in U cl E us L i A ve S , (#44715), and DOES 1 - 40

District Court, C.D. California · Aug 14, 2026

If only a portion or portions 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). … If only a 3 portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing 4 Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate 5 markings in the margins

Jimmie Coates v. RSCR California, Inc.

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

If only a portion or portions of the material on a page 24 qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected 25 portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). … If only a portion or portions 7 of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly 8 identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the 9

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

Shawn Jaffer v. American Honda Finance Corporation

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

If only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies 26 for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) 27 (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). … If only a 10 portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing 11 Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate 12 markings in the margins).

Keiron Elias v. A. Lichinov

District Court, C.D. California · Aug 29, 2019

List, 880 3 || F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) (dismissal of civil rights action “as to the 4 || Department of Prisons was proper” because “[t]he Nevada Department of Prisons, 5 || as a state agency, clearly was immune … To the extent 12 || plaintiff may believe that the contents of his supporting documents establish that 13 || he has somehow stated a viable claim, he is mistaken.

Teofilovich v. D'Amico Mediterranean/Pacific Line

415 F. Supp. 732 · District Court, C.D. California · Jun 11, 1976

This is why the courts created the. right to indemnity in the first place, and also why Congress gave the shipowner immunity from vicarious liability for the negligence of the stevedore when it took away the shipowner’s right … In light of the clear congressional intention behind the 1972 Amendments, this court finds that the Johnson decision is incorrect and in conflict with established Federal Maritime Law.

Y.A.R., a minor, by and through his Guardian ad Litem, KAREN HERNANDEZ v.

District Court, C.D. California · Aug 10, 2026

If only a portion of the material on a page qualifies for 5 protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) 6 (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). 7 … If only a portion of the material on a page qualifies for 17 protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) 18 (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins).

California Pharmacy Management, LLC v. Zenith Insurance

669 F. Supp. 2d 1152 · District Court, C.D. California · Nov 5, 2009

As an initial matter, the Court notes that Defendants’ Motion does not clearly distinguish between the allegations of contractual harm and the allegations of harm to CPM’s contracting physicians. … “Under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, those who petition any department of the government for redress are generally immune from liability.” Empress LLC v.

Jordan Williams v. The Boeing Company

District Court, C.D. California · Sep 30, 2025

and employee personal work performance information for the purpose of 4 5 establishing … clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate 16 17 markings in the margins).

J. R. v. COLA

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

If only a portion or portions of the material on a page 23 qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the 24 … This provision is not intended to modify 7 whatever procedure may be established in an e-discovery order that provides for 8

Daniel Lawson v. C A O N U G N EL T E Y S O P F O L L O IC S E A D N E G P E A L R E T S M , L E O N S T , S O T R I D P E U R L ATED PROTECTIVE C A I G T U Y I L O A F R L O (# S 4 4 A 0 N 38 G ) E , O L F E F S I , C O E F R F ICER R in U cl E us L i A ve S , (#44715), and DOES 1 - 40

District Court, C.D. California · Aug 14, 2026

If only a portion or portions 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). … If only a 3 portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing 4 Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate 5 markings in the margins

Carter v. Novartis Consumer Health, Inc.

582 F. Supp. 2d 1271 · District Court, C.D. California · Aug 5, 2008

Of course, the Court recognizes that Plaintiffs have argued that their warranty claims are immunized under a much broader theory: that warranties should be removed from the preemption analysis entirely because they do not … constitute requirements established by a state.

ROBINSON PHARMA, INC. v. REBALANCE HEALTH, INC. and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive

District Court, C.D. California · May 8, 2026

The parties’ mere designation 19 of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL or HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL 20 – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY does not—without the submission of competent evidence 21 by declaration, establishing … If only a portion 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).

K.M. ex rel. Bright v. Tustin Unified School District

78 F. Supp. 3d 1289 · District Court, C.D. California · Jun 1, 2015

provision under the IDEA and a similar provision within the Section 504 regulations promulgated by the Department of Education, requiring schools receiving federal funds to provide “a free appropriate public education to each qualified … Awarding fees for all the time spent on the case, including legal argument for clearly unsuccessful positions, would therefore result in an excessive fee award.

Charles N Belssner v. Circle Dental

District Court, C.D. California · May 21, 2020

Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991) (explaining judicial immunity is 16 immunity from suit, not just from the ultimate assessment of damages). 17 This is true even if his actions were done maliciously or in excess … Thus, there is clearly no merit to Plaintiff’s suit.

Calderon v. Sisto

609 F. Supp. 2d 1077 · District Court, C.D. California · Apr 6, 2009

As an initial matter, “[t]he requirements of Miranda ... are ‘clearly established’ federal law within the meaning of AED-PA.” Juan H. v. … Accordingly, the California Supreme Court’s denial of Ground One was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d).

MODERN FLOOR SPECIALISTS, INC. et al. v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al.

District Court, C.D. California · Apr 3, 2026

However, 16 Plaintiffs cannot establish this probability because Plaintiffs’ state law claims are all 17 barred by California’s litigation privilege. 18 California’s litigation privilege … Properly construed, Rule 11 26 sanctions are “an extraordinary remedy” reserved for “the rare and exceptional case 27 where the action is clearly frivolous, legally unreasonable or without legal foundation, 28 or brought

Nick Gaige, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. EXER HOLDING COMPANY, LLC

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

If only a portion or portions of the material on a page 12 13 qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected … If only a portion or portions 27 28 of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly 2

Amber Medina v. DIRECTV, LLC; Credence Resource Management, LLC; and I.C. System, Inc.

District Court, C.D. California · Jun 25, 2026

If only a portion or portions of the material on a page 5 qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the 6 protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the 7 margins … This 5 provision is not intended to modify whatever procedure may be 6 established in an e-discovery order that provides for production without 7 prior privilege review.