Case law

D'Lil v. Riverboat Delta King, Inc.

59 F. Supp. 3d 1001 · District Court, E.D. California · Sep 25, 2014

First, assuming their accuracy, Charles’s calculations do not establish that the Elevator and Aft Gangways are compliant. … responsible for the enforcement of this part may grant exceptions from the literal requirements of the standards and specifications required by this part or permit the use of other methods or materials, but only when it is clearly

(PS) McGarry v. Johnson

District Court, E.D. California · Oct 13, 2023

Such prosecutorial immunity is 28 absolute. Buckley v. … ECF No. 14 at 5. 5 Such claims are clearly barred by prosecutorial immunity. Plaintiff does not address the issue of 6 prosecutorial immunity in his opposition to the motion to dismiss.

Abhat

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 1, 2026

If only a portion or portions of the material on 16 a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the 17 protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). … If only a portion or portions of 27 the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly 28 2 margins).

Luna v. Lowe's

District Court, E.D. California · May 25, 2022

If only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for 15 protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., 16 by making appropriate markings in the margins). … If only a portion or portions of the material 26 on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the 27 protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). 28

Lopes v. Vieira

543 F. Supp. 2d 1149 · District Court, E.D. California · Mar 13, 2008

Immunities and other affirmative defenses may be upheld on a motion to dismiss only when they are established on the face of the complaint. See Morley v. Walker, 175 F.3d 756, 759 (9th Cir.1999); Jablon v. … Preparation of the draft was clearly in furtherance of the allegedly fraudulent scheme.

Frye v. City of Sacramento

District Court, E.D. California · May 30, 2024

If only a portion 12 or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly 13 identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins … If only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for 21 protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the

(PC) Ramos v. California Dept of Corrections

District Court, E.D. California · Sep 16, 2022

The court may dismiss a claim as frivolous if it is based on an indisputably meritless legal 15 theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. … to abrogate a State’s 23 Eleventh Amendment immunity.”

Alvarez v. Harder Mechanical Contractors

District Court, E.D. California · Jul 15, 2025

While short, 14 Plaintiff’s amended complaint does not clearly state what happened, when it happened, and who 15 was involved. The nature of Plaintiff’s discrimination claim is unclear. … This prohibition applies to all employees, regardless of whether 15 they qualify as “disabled” under the ADA.

Martinez

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

If only a portion or portions of the 21 material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the 22 protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). 23 … If only a portion or 3 portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly 4 identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). 5

(PC) Miles v. Hollister

District Court, E.D. California · Sep 14, 2020

Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 554-55 (1967) (applying judicial 18 immunity to a § 1983 action). … In this regard, “the proponent of the stay bears the burden of establishing its need.” 4 Clinton v.

(PC) Davis v. Hutcheson

District Court, E.D. California · Jun 27, 2023

immunity. … For the reasons discussed below, the 18 Court finds Defendants’ first two arguments persuasive, and thus the Court does not address 19 qualified immunity. 20 A.

(PS) Chiu v. Extra Space Storage

District Court, E.D. California · Jan 23, 2023

SCREENING 22 A determination that a plaintiff qualifies financially for in forma pauperis status does not 23 complete the inquiry required by the statute. … There is no clearly 5 identifiable incident that forms the basis of the complaint. No causes of action are asserted. The 6 sentences in the complaint do not make sense.

Davis v. Nevada County, CA

District Court, E.D. California · Dec 11, 2023

If only a portion or 2 portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify 3 the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). 4 … If only a portion or portions 12 of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the 13 protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). 14

Rodriguez

District Court, E.D. California · May 22, 2026

If only a 27 portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also 28 1 must clearly identify the protected … If only a portion or 11 portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly 12 identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). 13

(PC) Cage v. Johnson

District Court, E.D. California · Jul 14, 2025

immunity. … The Remaining Arguments 26 The Court declines to address Defendant’s other arguments concerning the Heck-bar, 27 official capacity, PLRA bar, and qualified immunity because it has

Vela v. Boccane

District Court, E.D. California · May 14, 2021

As a 27 basic matter, the complaint does not clearly state what happened. … “Few 6 doctrines were more solidly established at common law than the immunity of judges from 7 liability for damages for acts committed within their judicial jurisdiction.” Pierson v.

Cervantes v. Metropolitan Life Insurance

388 F. Supp. 2d 1164 · District Court, E.D. California · Jul 18, 2005

The Certification also established that Plaintiff could reach above shoulder level and operate a motor vehicle. Dr. … Since MetLife failed to exercise its right to delimit who may qualify as a duly authorized representative under the Plan, the Court finds that Plaintiff was free to select Dr.

Weeks v. Union Pacific Railroad

137 F. Supp. 3d 1204 · District Court, E.D. California · Oct 7, 2015

A plaintiff may establish a prima facie case of disability .discrimination under FEHA if he shows that he: (1) suffered from a disability, (2) was otherwise qualified to do his or-her job, and (3) was. subjected to an adverse … Union Pacific has not established that reasonable accommodation was offered and refused, nor has it established that there were no vacant positions in its organization for which Weeks was qualified.

DeMaria v. Yolo County Sheriff's Office

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 27, 2024

If only 12 a portion or portions 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 in the 14 margins … If only a portion or 23 portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly 24 identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). 25

(PS) Faruki v. Housing Authority for the County of Sacramento

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 28, 2025

. § 636. 1 immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 2 (2000). … A 16 plaintiff can establish a disability discrimination claim under a theory of disparate treatment, 17 disparate impact, or failure to make reasonable accommodations. See Budnick v.